PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (ANIMAL WELFARE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2008. Page 2459.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:36): This bill has been debated in another place, where it was introduced by the minister responsible and through which it has passed. The government has indicated in its presentation of the bill that it is a modernisation of the act, that is, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985.

It also claims that the change in the title introduces an emphasis on animal welfare, as distinct from the emphasis being on the prevention of cruelty to animals. However, from the observations of the opposition, there appears to be little evidence of this in the actual amendments to the act. However, on behalf of the opposition, I indicate that, whilst we will be supporting a number of amendments, the general thrust of the bill is supported. The key aspects of the amendments are:

1. a massive increase in the penalties (in most cases, at least doubled);

2. an introduction of routine inspection of intensive animal farms;

3. making aggravated offences an indictable offence;

4. the most significant change is that the requirement of evidence prior to the inspection of properties in which animals are held is no longer required.

There are significant changes in the definition. As I understand it, the bill outlines that officers appointed under the act will be the main compliance enforcers, rather than police officers, notwithstanding that the bill makes aggravated offences an indictable offence. The bill also seeks to outlaw organised animal fighting.

I do not think there would be anyone in the parliament who has not supported in every way the thrust of the current act in its desire to protect against the imposition of any cruel conduct towards animals. We, of course, have the benefit of animals in our urban and rural communities. We have them as pets and companions. They provide and are held and bred for the purposes of our very significant human consumption requirements, and they also form a very significant part of our export industry and the economy of the country.

So, across the spectrum, they are a valued companion to humans. Where they contribute to food for the community is particularly an area where we must ensure that there is no opportunity for them to be dealt with in a manner which is cruel and unacceptable, whether it be in their detention or in their execution.

There is really, I suppose, a third significant area, and that is where animals are also part of some entertainments, some of which both we and clearly the government consider to be abhorrent and unnecessarily cruel activities, such as cock fighting and the like, where, as in this case, one bird is set against another bird and ends in a painful and cruel demise. That is seen to be unacceptable. On the other hand, there are many sporting activities, such as horseracing, rodeos and the like, where animals play a very significant part in the social infrastructure and sporting activities that we enjoy as a community.

However, in whatever activity animals are kept, tethered, bred or dealt with for the purposes of food production, economic gain, companionship, sporting or recreational activities, they must be dealt with in a decent manner, and we join the government in that sentiment and in the process of ensuring that that occurs.

I must say that on first blush of reading the bill when it was introduced I felt that, from the point of view of protection against cruel and clearly inhuman activity, there is sufficient provision in the bill to protect animals, for example, that may be kept where there is a failure to feed them adequately. Many of us are familiar with scenes of animals sometimes, for example, being kept in overcrowded, confined or cramped quarters or accommodation that is unacceptable in any fair assessment and/or they are deprived of food or water and/or they are cruelly tethered and the like. These are the sorts of activities where it is important for whomever is the authorised officer to be able to deal with the issue and urgently seek to intervene and protect an animals or animals.

In the original act, we exclude fish under the definition, and I read with some curiosity that they are still excluded. The poor old fish seem to have been ignored in this legislation. However, in the fear that I might lose every vote from the recreational fishing industry, I will not be moving any amendment. However, I will say that it has always seemed curious to me that the disposal of fish in the commercial and/or recreational fishing is excluded. In fact, I wonder whether the goldfish that are left in the bowl too long or the tropical fish left in a garden pool that are kept without adequate aeration or filtration of the water or sustenance would be covered. They seem to have slipped through the net, so to speak. They are not covered at all, it seems to me, by the very definition. Aside from those curiosities, I hasten to add that have not heard of any wilful or recklessly negligent conduct on the part of people towards goldfish, but often when you look at this type of legislation, you do wonder.

Much debate occurred in another place. The Hons Michelle Lensink and Caroline Schaefer were two powerful speakers on behalf of the opposition, because it is fair to say that one of the significant areas of concern is whether this proposed legislation will adversely impact on the operation of rodeos, that is, events where horses, cattle and the like are involved in eventing, which usually requires that they be restrained or tethered in some way.

It seems to me that, on viewing some of these events over the years, it is usually the animals that win but, nevertheless, it is an event that is a significant part of our rural culture. It is also an important event for tourism, and it is an important part of the social structure in country regions. It has a national and international following and it is therefore something to be considered, because nobody wishes to adversely affect such an activity unreasonably.

It has also probably gained some attention because, at some events in recent years, representatives in the community have felt that this type of entertainment and activity is providing a forum in which horses, cattle, calves—stock—are, in some way, mistreated. That has been quite vocal, and it has had some media coverage. When these things occur, it is reasonable to consider whether legislation that is drafted is silent on how it may negatively impact on something. Amendments are foreshadowed to ensure that consideration is given to remedying some of those, hopefully, and they will be moved by the member for Stuart, who is of course a living expert on these matters. Those amendments have been drafted and members have had notice of, I think, some nine or 10 amendments that the member for Stuart proposes to move and address.

Many of them were presented in another place but rejected by the government, unreasonably, I think. On the face of it, it seems to be the government's intention not to adversely affect the operation of rodeos. We would ask, if the government is genuine in that regard, not to proceed with the bill, which is dressed up to be something but in fact is indeed to restrict the operation of rodeos to proceed in a humane and lawful manner. If it was seriously genuine in that regard, we would have expected that the government in another place would have leapt on a number of these amendments, and having failed to do so, and in fact vigorously opposed them, that the members of government in this house will take the opportunity to support the amendments that have been foreshadowed.

I do not propose to traverse each of them as to their extensive merits, but I do indicate that, as members are aware, they have been tabled and need to be considered. I will indicate, though, that on the minister's foreshadowed amendments on the definition of a qualified person, in particular the description of their training, that the government had accepted the Hon. Caroline Schaefer's amendment that inspectors should have some form of qualification.

However, in the government's drafting of this amendment, some technical issues were not taken into account and this amendment actually ensures that that occurs, and the opposition supports that amendment. There is a second amendment foreshadowed to expand the relevant action from 'the action' to 'any action'. The opposition has received that as a tidying-up of a technical matter and indicate that that will be supported.

Of the amendments that the member for Stuart has foreshadowed, can I say that the amendment to restrict prosecutions under the act to be commenced only by an inspector or a prescribed person is one of great importance to the opposition. This relates to the bill as it currently stands permitting third-party prosecutions, and that is not something that is open in many other areas of the law for third parties to come forward and to prosecute matters.

The law identifies regularly persons or groups of persons who, with certain qualifications (independence, integrity and the like) are deemed not only to be capable of understanding whether there has been a transgression of the law but also of being sufficiently unbiased to ensure—and this is not exclusively but generally—that they are fair in the prosecution of a matter, and that when you have that type of regime it minimises the opportunity for some zealot or extremist group (or representative thereof) to persecute a party or an operation or, in this case, an activity such as rodeo events when it is inconsistent with their particular view on whether it should be allowed at all.

Again, using that example, if there was an element of an animal liberation group, for example, who took the view that rodeo eventing was unacceptable, that it should be outlawed altogether and, in the knowledge that that has not been represented in the law—that is, it remains a permissible event and, indeed, an enjoyable event to many, or it was felt that the legal veil upon which the risk protection for animals in such eventing is inadequate or inappropriate—then they may be persuaded with the weight of that commitment to prosecute or persecute a party unfairly, cause inconvenience, disruption, unreasonable expense or hurt, and ultimately make threats of imprisonment, to a party in an intimidatory manner as a result of which they would disturb the peaceful continuation of such eventing. So, it would be a deliberate, wilful and destructive act and, if third party prosecutions are allowed in this type of arena where emotions run high and views are very diverse, then it is important that we keep some independence.

It would be like saying that a member of Greenpeace should be able, as the third party, to prosecute Japanese whalers. It is a highly emotive issue where there is diversity of opinion. There is an agreement internationally that the Japanese are able to harvest a certain number of whales. It is offensive and obscene to some people yet acceptable to others. There is a certain regime in place and in this circumstance, though, where some find it very offensive, then of course I suggest they would not be the impartial, unbiased party that would be involved in introductions of prosecution.

Therefore, it is important, especially in circumstances where an act or an activity attracts controversy and a high level of emotion, that the people who have the power to arrest, prosecute, intervene or regulate must be unbiased and, as much as possible, must be removed from the emotion of that. So, in that regard, it is important to the opposition that we maintain this position and that, in those circumstances, it is our view that it is important for this parliament to support that amendment. As I said, we have foreshadowed a number of other amendments. They will be traversed eloquently, I am sure, by the member for Stuart, the mover of the anticipated amendments. With those few words, I indicate our overall support for the bill.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (16:57): I am sorry that I have to participate in this debate because some provisions in this bill are aimed fairly and squarely at my constituents and other rural people in South Australia who are hardworking, diligent people who should not be subjected to the scurrilous and unnecessary personal attacks which some of them have had to put up with over recent times. These small communities which run rodeos, and those people who are involved in the intensive animal husbandry industry, need common sense to apply.

Let's deal firstly with animal husbandry. I have in my constituency at Burra, Robertstown and Eudunda—and the honourable member for Goyder has one at Port Wakefield—two separate institutions where there are very large intensive animal husbandry production centres. These are highly sophisticated. They are involved in very extensive biotechnology, and it is absolutely imperative that people cannot, at random or at will, go into these facilities or you run the risk of destroying them.

The management of the one at Robertstown told me that there was absolutely no way that they are going to let anybody come in through the door. You will not have an industry. I do not know whether the minister or any of the backbenchers or the bureaucrats advising the government, who seem to have the poor minister absolutely hoodwinked in relation to these issues, have ever visited one because you have to have a shower and you have to get changed, and that process has to take place not just at one location but at each separate shed because if you get an outbreak you can wipe out the whole project.

These are very important sources of employment. They are highly sophisticated. They are strategically located not to be too close to one another. The management of the one at Robertstown has expressed grave concern about the long-term effects of this legislation and the effect it will have upon their particular industry.

I do not know where the minister's advisers have been and I do not know their aims and objectives. I think sinister people are involved. We hear from time to time from these irrational people who do not want live exports of stock. They do not want any form of intense animal husbandry. I wonder what they really want? It is no good people complaining (as they are now) about the high cost of food. If we put these measures in place, then we will create more expense.

It will get more expensive because people running these sorts of institutions will take only so much and then they will be gone. They will not be in this country. The bureaucrats themselves in the minister's department with their foolish ideas and objectives will be out of a job. I am surprised that we are debating this bill, because I thought we were living in a more enlightened and responsible time. There are lots of things I do not know much about, but I have had some experience with these issues.

Then we come to those people who run rodeos, gymkhanas, campdrafting and other sorts of traditional Australian pastimes and entertainment. Who runs them? They are run under a code of practice from the Rodeo Association of Australia. Who are these people? They are ordinary, hardworking volunteers who freely give their time to provide entertainment and raise funds for their own community and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Let us look at where they are. There is a new one established at Port Augusta and then there is Carrieton, Wilmington, Spalding, Peterborough and others. On Sunday I was invited to a community event in Carrieton and I had the pleasure of opening the mural there. I told them that we would be debating this issue in the parliament and that I would be doing my best to endeavour to ensure that commonsense prevails. I told them that I knew full well that malcontents in the minister's office were pandering to outside extremists who wanted to put conditions in place to make life difficult for volunteers so that they would give the thing away. That is their objective.

I want the minister to answer this question this afternoon or whenever he responds: why is it that the Calgary Stampede, one of the biggest sporting events in the world, can operate at Calgary without a permit from the local government, the provincial government or the national government? They do not have to fill out silly reports and they are not involved with this sort of activity. Why is it that when we come to little South Australia we have to burden these people with all these foolish, unnecessary and unwarranted restrictions? At Calgary Stampede they have chuckwagon racing, as well as other events. If one goes to Edmonton and the United States, it is part of their way of life—as it is in rural South Australia. It is not unusual to ride horses and to participate in these things.

The contractors who own the stock would not allow them to continue to be used if they were getting injured or if they were not well treated. We should understand that clearly. Most of the animals are owned by contractors who take them from place to place. There are veterinary surgeons there. If members doubt me, they should talk to the doctor at Quorn (who is a great supporter) to see what he has to say. I wonder whether the bureaucrats in the minister's department can convince him that these things are bad. He would laugh at them, because they are foolish, naive people who have a nasty streak in them; and the nasty streak is to make life difficult for good, hardworking Australians.

Let me say one thing. There will be consequences for this legislation at the ballot box. We will ensure that every person in the rural areas of Stuart and Frome are fully aware of what is in this legislation and why. The people will be told that if they want rodeos to continue they should not vote for the Labor Party, because it has been made captive of this extremist group.

Crazy people are going to rodeos to record videos—cutting and interfering with them and not showing what actually happens. Most of them would have no idea about animal handling or how to deal with horses and cattle or other animals. Then they race along to Channel 7 and make irresponsible, inaccurate, misleading comments.

Then there is the disgraceful situation where a person at Marrabel was dragged before the courts at great personal expense. When they walked away from the prosecution they did not have the decency to fund his legal expenses. What a disgraceful act! This is what has been permitted under the legislation. The government has drawn up these dreadful regulations which provide that they have to fill out reports. What is the benefit of that? Why must we have this bureaucratic paper trail? They do not need it at Calgary, Edmonton and other places around the United States and Canada, but we must have it in little South Australia. We have to have it here—these enlightened characters who have the ear of the minister.

What knowledge or experience has this minister had in managing livestock? Has she ever been involved in mustering or herding cattle? What about our bureaucrats? They go on about electric prodders and those things. Have they ever tried to load stock on a hot day and get them to run up three crates high? I just wonder if they have ever tried to do it. They are obsessed with these provisions. It is bad enough to have inspectors, but to let a third party be involved is a prescription for people to bring frivolous and unnecessary prosecutions.

I have put forward a number of changes that are fair and reasonable for the purposes of making sure that the people who operate these events for the benefit of the South Australian community are treated fairly. They are not radical; they are responsible. I have done so because during my time in this place I have seen decent people badly treated. It is my experience that, if you let people loose in the department of environment, it is not conducive to looking after ordinary people.

Let us take another example. They are proud of themselves; they have put the punt at Innamincka out of business. That gentleman is now on the dole. Members should go and talk to the people and the tourist operators up there and see what they are saying: see what the hotels are saying and what Spriggs are saying at Arkaroola about this disgraceful act. We are dealing with that in another forum, and there will be plenty more come in that respect. That is just an example of how naive and foolish these people are.

These provisions give inspectors tremendous powers. I put this to the minister: at the end of the day, does she respect the fact that people involved in agriculture and farming care for their animals and do not want to see them injured or maltreated—because many of them need them to make a living—or will they accept the advice of agitators and malcontents who have an odd outlook on life and who have no understanding of what is necessary to properly manage and look after these animals?

On the radio this week we have heard sections of the RSPCA going off about the carting of stock and what they want to do. I just wonder where they are coming from. The comments were so far from left field that I wonder if they are really in South Australia. They are ill-conceived and foolish and unnecessary if they think that people will allow stock to be loaded in such a way that they will be injured or get to market in poor condition. Whatever next? Do they really think that the average farmer wants that to happen; that they want to see the stock knocked around—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —that is right—or to see them distressed? It is absolute nonsense. I wonder how many of the members sitting behind the minister have taken the trouble to read and understand this legislation and to fully appreciate what the long-term effects will be.

From time to time we hear the Minister for Volunteers say what a great thing they do. This weekend I am going to the Marree races, which is an event which attracts a considerable number of people from a wide area of northern South Australia. It is run by volunteers who give their time freely, and it raises money for the community and the Royal Flying Doctor. Is the minister going to send one of these characters up in a blue number-plated car so they can spy on them—as they did while sitting on the bank at Innamincka, spying on the poor bloke taking out a few tourists? These people might enjoy themselves. What a terrible thing!

We have Sir Humphrey I or II with a camera. Talk about 007; that is what these people are! The Department for Environment and Heritage: the South Australian version of James Bond. Are they going to be at Oodnadatta, or Marree? A couple of years ago at Carrieton they were filming the member for Davenport and me, because they were trying to allege that we were a party to animal cruelty. I have never heard such nonsense. We were standing next to the local doctor from Quorn!

Here are these characters, these great saviours of animals—the animal liberationists and other people—who think they are really on to something. They had us on the camera. Most politicians like to have their photographs taken: it does not intimidate us at all. I am a fairly shy fellow, and it takes a lot to get me mobile and on my feet. Those are the sorts of things that take place.

Then they tried to get amongst the animals in the stalls. I would not get anywhere near a Brahman bull in a stall. They are not noted for being friendly, and I would not walk across a paddock containing one, because I think they would want to get a bit close to you: I think they might want to do more than shake hands with you. But there they are, these characters.

They are trying to make it absolutely impossible for these hardworking, good people to run these events. They have excellent facilities at Carrieton, and thousands of people go there. If they were so bad, people would not go. They would not turn up; they would object. I have not received one complaint from a member of the public in my constituency about the running of these events, and I have been attending them for a long time, as has the member for Goyder, who distinguished himself as a senior officer working for local government. He knows how valuable and important they are to those communities.

It is like the little picnic race meetings. My earliest memories are of going to the picnic race meeting on the beach at Perlubie on New Year's Day. Now I suppose the department would not want horses to run on the beach. That in itself would be a crime, wouldn't it? Horses running up and down the beach, what a shocking thing! They would want to stop that. Then it will be people riding horses. I think the minister was going on in the other place about big men on big horses chasing cars. What a lot of nonsense. Where is the minister coming from? He is supposed to be a minister of the Crown, someone who is supposed to have some balance to his decision-making powers, not to be a rubber stamp for a group of people who have ulterior motives.

The bill is bad. It has the wrong bias. It is not there to help people. It appears that we are continuing to go down the track of wanting to make life as difficult as we possibly can for people. Why would we want to do that? All it does is raise my blood pressure. It has taken me days to work myself up to make a speech of this nature. I will have to take a couple of blood pressure tablets because I have been so concerned about having to say a few words and I have been poring over this speech for hours. When I look at these provisions I think, 'Well, is this the place that I came into in 1970?', when perhaps we had a more enlightened approach to things, and when the Labor Party had a lot of people who had been in the Australian Workers Union. Many of them would have participated in rodeos. They knew about handling cattle.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Will it? I see his son and his family enjoying the Peterborough rodeo each year. They are not running around with cameras trying to make out there is something improper or illegal taking place there. I will be pursuing my amendments to try to make right what is wrong, to protect the volunteers, to ensure that these local communities are able to provide some entertainment for their people, to raise some funds, to allow people a little enjoyment and to participate in what is an Australian way of life—and you want to deny them that right.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:17): I wish to make a few comments on this because, as the member for Stuart alluded to, I have previously lived in the community near Carrieton, so I have a little experience with how that community dealt with rodeos and the respect that they have for animals too. I also congratulate the member for Stuart. He might have said that it took him a few weeks to get the nerve up to stand and speak, but I think he has had a fire in the belly on this matter for the last three weeks.

Ms Chapman: 30 years.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am corrected by the member for Bragg—30 years. It is obvious to me that he wants to ensure that communities that he serves are cared for in the legislation that is enacted within parliament, and that is the responsibility of us all. I think it is important that many of us talk about this bill because, potentially, it will have serious effects, and it is important that we try to get some amendments considered by the parliament.

Because this legislation was on the schedule three weeks or so ago when we last sat, I took the time to read through all the contributions from the Legislative Council that were made—from the shadow minister, minor party members and the government—to see how the debate occurred on the amendments that were moved there. It was quite enlightening. I am very confident that both sides of the house have some concerns about the cruelty that does occur to some animals and we want to ensure that appropriate legislation is enacted because no animal should be kept in a cruel circumstance. Every animal should be well treated. I do not think that rodeos mistreat animals. They are very well cared for because the owners of those animals receive a valuable income from them.

In my little way I am not an animal owner, other than the fact that I have a pet. I had not been a pet person, but eight years ago my family acquired a pet dog.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: A great comment from the member. There are a few comments coming across the chamber about some people not being pet owners, I think, but they are really important to a lot of families and for some people they make a difference to their quality of life. Our dog came to us when it was three years old. We have had it for eight years. It is at the end of its life cycle, I must admit, but our dog is beloved by not only my family but also all our neighbours, and I know it will be sad day when she passes away.

I am very confident about the fact that the overall majority of people are like me and my family in that they respect the needs of animals and they do everything that they can to care for them in the best possible way. Sadly though, this legislation is proposed on the basis that not everybody does the right thing and, indeed, that is probably the reason why most laws are written.

The opposition consulted quite extensively on this bill. We went to a lot of effort to contact people who were involved in animal keeping to ensure that we had their opinions when we considered it in the other place. I note that we spoke to intensive animal husbandry people, the South Australian Farmers Federation and the Livestock Carriers Association. Within my own electorate of Goyder, obviously being one of the regional electorates, I have a very strong farming interest. In the Adelaide Plains area there are also intensive chicken farms, and they are developing amazingly. If we had a little more infrastructure to support them, especially with water and electricity capacity, there would be even more, but those chicken farms are very important economic drivers to the region. They also make an enormous difference in providing employment opportunities for the people in my area.

This area also has pig farms, where intensive animal husbandry takes place. The people who run these farms all know that their bottom line, which is what determines whether they are going to make a profit or lose money on their efforts, relies upon how they keep the animals. They do everything that they can to ensure that the animals are kept in good condition, that they are cared for as much as possible, and that they grow as quickly as they can, and we recognise that. Importantly, they want to ensure that their bottom line is as competitive as it can possibly be. However, they want to be sure that the legislation that the parliament enacts is not over the top, that it allows them to continue to operate.

My mother's family are farmers from the bottom of Yorke Peninsula and my wife's family are farmers. Even though I have never had direct responsibility for sheep or cattle, I have been involved from time to time in the mustering of sheep.

An honourable member: You married into it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I did, I married into it. Best move I ever made in my life, too.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: None. I might inherit some, but we'll see. I have helped them with mulesing, and it is one of the more interesting experiences that I have had in my life. Being the biggest or the strongest, my job was to lift the lambs up into the cradle. I got sick of that pretty quickly, but—

Mr Pederick: It is good for you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; other people say it is good for you, but I am not sure about that.

Ms Chapman: Does it hurt the sheep?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Does it hurt the sheep? It is necessary. There are efforts being made to improve it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, my grandfather has, though.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not want to digress. When I was very young my grandfather demonstrated to me the action involving the teeth, the body part dropping to the ground and the dogs eating that. That is not an attractive practice. Luckily, I was not mentally scarred for life from that experience, but I certainly remember seeing it happen. When the opposition considered the original bill in the Legislative Council, many amendments were moved and the majority of those amendments were supported, which I think was good. In some cases, the amendments were supported by the government, but certainly, in many cases, by the minor parties. The debates were quite lengthy.

The advice given to me by the shadow minister is that the bill should be supported in this chamber. We know that, since that time, the member for Stuart has put forward nine amendments. The minister also has two amendments. I think that the debate on those amendments will be quite enlightening for many people. I am looking forward to listening to that because I know the member for Stuart will certainly put a very passionate case for what he thinks is very important. He thinks it is important because his community is telling him that it is important. I will not put words into his mouth, but his amendments are based on the fact that community-based rodeos predominantly held in the northern part of the state (which he has had the honour of serving for 38 years) want to continue to exist.

My key point is that rodeos are a community event. I did live close to Carrieton, which was one of the rodeos to which the member for Stuart referred. For me, it was the next town up the road. I lived in Orroroo for 5½ years. I did have the chance to know personally every person from Carrieton who was involved in the rodeo, and they are all good people. Carrieton is only a small community of about 50 people. There would only be about another 150 people living in the immediate surrounding area which covers several thousand square kilometres.

Members have to respect the fact that this is a small community, but each year they all come together for this weekend between Christmas and new year to run a rodeo. It is not a small rodeo: it attracts about 7,000 people. I found it amazing that a small community situated so far north of the major population bases can attract so many people, but it does. Everyone who attends has a great time, but importantly they respect the fact that the animals are cared for.

This community goes to the effort of holding this rodeo because it makes a difference to whether or not that community survives. I know that the local government has a very strong involvement with every service provided in the town and, to some degree, it has some sense of ownership. It is important that we in this chamber respect the fact that, when 7,000 people attend a rodeo in such a small community and one which turns over about $70,000 per year, the profit goes straight back into that community.

I had the opportunity to play cricket in that town only because the equipment provided for the cricket players comes from the profits of the rodeo and the tennis club is only able to survive because it has such financial support. It is important that, while we might want to bring in legislation that will preserve animal safety—and I would not want to denigrate that because it is critically important—there has to be some level of balance between what we can provide and what allows communities to get on with their lives and to ensure that they have some social activities and important fundraising opportunities.

These people who work and run all these rodeos come from the land. They all have a deep attachment to the land and, by association, that means they have stock. These people want to ensure that the animals are not mistreated. They want to ensure that the animals are cared for, and they probably want the amendments the member for Stuart intends to move supported because they can see the sense behind them. The member for Stuart has not proposed these amendments flippantly. There is a very strong reason behind each of them.

I know the debate which will occur at the committee stage will be rather interesting, but the honourable member comes very strongly from the point of view that his amendments support these communities, and that is what we should all do. With those few words, I support the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:26): I rise to support my party's position, in particular the member for Stuart, on this matter. As the member for Goyder just said, the member for Stuart has put in much thought and effort and personal angst on this matter because he has a lot of personal feeling for it. I, too, have represented areas which run rodeos, particularly Crystal Brook many years ago, and Marrabel, of course. I am fully aware of how popular they are and how professionally they are run.

From the outset, I say that I am an animal lover and I detest cruelty to animals. In fact, one of the pleasures of my life is to get out of this place, go back to the farm and get in the ute with the dog sitting next to me on the seat—much to my wife's chagrin, particularly when it is muddy—and to drive around the farm. He sits up there; he is as big as I am. He is a German shepherd. You get a lot of comfort from an intelligent, supportive, loyal animal—a dog. He enjoys it. As soon as I arrive home, he does a beeline for the ute wanting to go for a drive. I only have to say the word 'ute' and he is there straightaway.

We love animals; we all do. I do not believe that, in some instances, legislation such as this is necessary. However, there are some grey areas in defining cruelty to animals. Some people believe that mulesing a sheep is cruel. I disagree. I ask people who maintain this belief to look at a flyblown sheep and then decide. I am completely against deliberate cruelty or harm being done to an animal.

I have been trained in the practice of mulesing and was a mulesing contractor in the past. I know that it is fairly harsh on the young sheep, but they recover very quickly. We have lost very few over the years. We are not doing the practice now because we are not farming young sheep as we used to do. I cannot recall any sheep ever dying from the operation. I have to say that we used particularly surgically clean and ground tools. Our hygiene was absolutely spotless. We did not cut the skin, we sliced it; and usually within an hour of the operation, the sheep were walking around as if nothing had ever happened.

Yes, I have to say that the pain level would be pretty high. I always thought that, if it was affordable, why could we not use a veterinarian grade sedative or an anaesthetic on the sheep so that they would not feel the pain? In the end, when you see a flyblown sheep, that is far worse, especially when you see a sheep trying to back into posts trying to rub the flies off the wound on its backside and holes in which you can put your hand and feel the back of the sheep's body, whether it be the crotch, the breech of the animal or the neck: it can be anywhere. There is nothing worse than something being flyblown, whether it be from manure on the back of the sheep or body strike. It is a shocking thing, and that is what we are trying to avoid. At least with mulesing it is done when the weather and conditions are right. The sheep are looked after and are in good condition, and they are protected for their whole life against fly strike.

I, as is my party, am completely in favour of the creation of an aggravated offence for those people who are deliberately cruel to an animal, whether such cruelty involves depriving an animal of food and water, physically torturing or harming it, or forcing it to fight in an organised fight. Such cruelty is completely inexcusable, and anyone perpetrating this kind of act on an animal deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. I do not include trained rodeo horses and bullocks, and calf handling, and those involved are truly gifted professional people, as are the veterinary surgeons who are always present overseeing it.

The member for Stuart has several amendments, and I will support him in this matter. I am happy that the bill will increase penalties for those who are ill-treating an animal or engaging in organising animal fights. The fine will now be up to $20,000 or two years' imprisonment. However, I have concerns about the content of the bill with regard to the powers that both the minister and the inspectors will have. The minister will have the power to appoint a person to be an inspector, as provided for in part 5, division 1, Appointment and identification of inspectors, which states:

The minister may, by instrument in writing, appoint a qualified person to be an inspector for the purposes of this act.

The power that will be attributed to the minister as a result of this bill I believe is unnecessary. The minister will now have the ability to appoint or dismiss inspectors and to delegate duties. This is the same concern that I had with regard to the health reform bill which was passed a couple of months ago. All power and decision-making will be ultimately in the hands of the minister. It seems to be that all this government is concerned about is having more and more power.

Another reservation I have regarding this bill is that the inspectors are not required to have any formal qualifications, yet they have extraordinary powers, as outlined in division 2, Powers of inspectors. Section 30(1), General powers, states:

An inspector may—

(a) enter and search and, if necessary, use reasonable force to break into or open—

(i) premises or a vehicle to which this section applies;

I will not quote it all, but the amendment bill gives inspectors the ability to take photos, film and audio and require a person to produce information stored on a computer, amongst other powers. Some of these powers are similar to those of a police officer. I cannot understand how an inspector who has no formal qualifications has the right to act if they reasonably suspect a breach. How are they qualified to judge? What is deemed as a reasonable breach? I think there are too many grey areas in this part of the bill. They need to be clarified and more clearly defined.

Another question I have is about cost. Who is going to fund these inspectors? The government is seeking to impart yet another level of bureaucracy, but there is no mention anywhere in the bill regarding funding. As I said at the outset, I detest animal cruelty and I believe offenders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, so I am glad that this bill seeks to make penalties for offenders more severe, but I have serious concerns regarding delegations that this bill seeks to give to the minister and inspectors, and I think more clarification is necessary on these points.

So I certainly support the member for Stuart's amendments. Farmers practise animal husbandry. They carry out tailing, castrating and mulesing on their sheep, and all these things are done to make their husbandry easier and to look after their stock. I do not believe any section of our community looks after, loves and respects their animals more than farmers. You do not often see emaciated stock on farms—you may, but it is a very rare occurrence. It is usually a seasonal problem rather than a deliberate act. You see more emaciated dogs and animals in towns and communities than you do on farms.

Cattle are also castrated and branded. You see them on TV in the Marlboro ads or you used to, and see how they grab them, drop them to the floor and hit them with a red-hot torch. These are things of the past. In relation to castrating and intensive housing of pigs (swine), this has all been brought up before, as has de-beaking of poultry and keeping them in cages. We know all about this. We have all been there. Also, it applies to pest animals such as rabbits, foxes, dingoes and goats. So, certainly, this is a fairly wide bill.

Before someone blandly comes in and throws these laws around, they have to consider the people they affect. They are the ones who do not ring us and who live in the far corners of our state—the ones the member for Stuart often sees, and I give him the credit. I ask members: how can the member for Stuart be here for 37 years in a marginal seat? It is because he looks after the little people. He listens and he hears. Let it be a lesson to every MP. At the last election when we suffered pretty badly, guess what—the member for Stuart is back here. You could not remove him. Now he is going of his own volition and free will, and we will miss him. But, all I can say is: let it be proof that he is hanging out on this issue, and it is one of the reasons he is still here. He takes on the bureaucracy and the system for the little people, and in this instance he is certainly looking after them. I not only admire him but also support him. I support this bill, but I will support all six of the member for Stuart's amendments.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:36): I also rise today to make a contribution to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill 2007. I lay on the record that members of my family have been farming in this state since they came here in 1840, and they were farming in England before that, so we have had a fair bit to do with the handling of animals over that period of time, whether they be sheep, cattle or horses (when they were used in former times for traction). In my own life I have been heavily involved in the wool industry, whether for breeding stock or shearing sheep (I trod the boards for 13 or 14 years), and also helped run a commercial Poll Hereford herd on my family farm. From a very young age we were assisting stock that might have gone down or cattle that had trouble calving.

The last thing a farmer wants to see is stock in any distress at all. I can remember on more than one occasion, as a 10 or 12 year old, assisting in pulling calves out of cattle that were having trouble calving, and doing what we could to keep both cow and calf alive. That is something that is uppermost in a producer's mind, because the last thing they want is to have injured or dead stock.

The wool industry has been a major component of this country's economy since the late 1700s. It was once said that 'we rode on the sheep's back' but, sadly, that industry has died off to a degree. I guess other commodities industries are becoming more important, with the mining boom, etc., taking over. However, the wool industry has been a major component of our history.

I, too, want to make some comments about mulesing. Millions of sheep would have died unnecessarily over time if this practice had not been used to prevent blowfly strike on the tail of sheep. From experience, I can tell members that there is nothing like shearing a sheep that is flyblown from tail to head; it is an absolutely disgusting thing to have to do. It is disgusting for anyone having to handle wool that is full of maggots. With any luck, the sheep may survive with a treatment of fly strike, either as a powder or as a liquid. However, if the sheep are that far gone, they are just about finished.

I commend Australian Wool International for looking at various alternatives so that we can get rid of the practice of mulesing. Practices such as the clips to go on the tail of an animal may be effective, but they need to be proven. I know we have pressure from groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others. I think the industry is doing what it can to move forward and find other ways to protect sheep and keep them alive.

Something that has been mentioned by other members today is the practice of tailing lambs, whether by the use of elastrator rings or a gas hot knife, which are quite humane practices. As with mulesing, these animal husbandry practices are the best way for farmers to get on with the job of running their sheep.

As has been mentioned by other members, there is a prevalence of chicken farms (there are quite a few in the Hammond electorate) and there is a potential for many more intensive chicken properties. We have seen the expansion of the pig industry, not just in my area but right throughout the state. In relation to the Primo Abattoir in the member for Goyder's electorate, it is good to see that the people who were working there were able to get jobs at a couple of abattoirs down in Hammond after the fire they had up there recently. Let us hope that that abattoir is under way 100 per cent in the very near future.

Pig breeding obviously still involves the use of farrowing crates to breed. Anyone who has seen a sow have piglets without these crates, where the sow rolls over and kills most of the little ones, would know that that is not a very sustainable practice. I think that eco-shelters are a major innovation in pig farming. You could probably run up to 100 or so pigs in an eco-shelter, and this has been around for a little while now. You have your automatic feeders and your automatic waterers, and I think that is a great way to grow pigs out from little pigs until it is time to go to market.

On the subject of going to market, freighting stock is obviously something that some people get anxious about. I notice that the freight industry for stock does have exemptions in respect of hours that drivers can drive so that they can get their stock to wherever they are going, whether it is to another property or to market, in the quickest possible time and in a respectable manner so that the stock is presented in good condition.

Farmers and others do not want to see stock in a deplorable state on these trucks. They go through the practice in the yards of emptying out as much as possible all the urine, etc., and loading the stock onto the trucks and delivering them safely, whether they are being delivered to another property or to a saleyard. This practice has been going on for a long time, and I believe that, for the most part, it is done in a very workmanlike manner. As part of freighting stock, electric prodders have to be used at times. As I have mentioned in this place before, if anyone has tried to load four decks of old ewes—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; you need a lot of good dogs. It can get very trying, and sometimes you have to give one or two a little help up onto the truck. Prodders have certainly been used in the cattle industry. Obviously, they are not to be used just because you have it in your hand, but sometimes they are needed in loading stock.

In conclusion, I want to talk a little about the Calgary Stampede, which I know the member for Stuart and probably others in this place have attended. I was at that event 24 years ago and know how impressive it was even back then to see how they put on that rodeo show in Canada. When the D9 bulldozers are not being used in the rodeo ring, they are dragging the stage out on to the ring. I am sure they do things in a bigger and better way there. I believe that anyone involved with animal husbandry in the rodeo industry does things in a sustainable way, because they know as well as anyone that people are watching and they need to make sure they do it right, as I believe they do.

One thing we do have to be careful about as a state and a nation is that, if people are going to get so agitated about how we run our livestock, whether it involve piggeries, chicken sheds or how we run our sheep and cattle (either paddock run or intensively), we do not make it so hard that we run the risk that people will not want to produce, because we may end up having to import food from people who have no safe practices.

It will be full of stuff and you will have no idea what is going on, what these stock have been grazing on, how they have been run and how they have been handled. That is the risk that we run if people want to get down on producers that hard that they make it unviable to produce stock in this country.

We have had a great record of producing stock; we have had a live sheep and live cattle trade that has transported hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock overseas, and currently we have many people working overseas making sure that people who receive the stock at the other end handle them in the best way possible. Yes, there does need to be constant education in that practice, but it is just the way we have to deal with some countries' religious beliefs. Just in closing, let us just be careful how we handle this debate, because otherwise we will kill off major industry.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (17:46): I thank all members for their contributions, and I acknowledge their passion and their concerns about the legislation. I also note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that the opposition will support the government's amendments, and we thank the opposition for that. A lot has been said in this debate that is really a statement of general views and philosophies which I listened to carefully, and I could understand much of what was said.

A number of amendments will be moved by the member for Stuart. The government, I should point out, will not be accepting his amendments, and we will deal with them as we go through the committee stage. Regarding some of his amendments, I can understand where he is coming from; for example, in relation to amendment No. 9 concerning the extent of who should be able to prosecute, I can understand that there is a valid argument in relation to that. I note that the traditional Gunn amendment has been included, which we have had debates about before.

There are issues in relation to what should be regulated under a rodeo event, and the honourable member seeks to remove a couple of items. I think people can have differences of opinion about those issues, but what does surprise me is the proposal in his second amendment that the act should not come into existence until 2015. That is clearly a joke, and it is making a mockery of the processes of parliament.

I accept that there is legitimacy in some of his arguments in relation to the other matters, but I say to the house that I have to reject that appellation as it applies to that clause. It does surprise me somewhat that the opposition has indicated that they will support all of his amendments, including an amendment that will delay the introduction of this legislation until not only the parliament after this one but the parliament after the one after this one.

It seems to me silliness, and what it indicates—and I think the opposition should think carefully about this—is that it would appear that it is trying to have a bob each way. The Deputy Leader comes in here and says she generally supports the legislation, but if she is to support this, she is in fact supporting legislation that will not be enacted for seven or so years, so I assume the opposition is hoping that somewhere in that time it will be elected into government and it will be able to change the legislation and defeat the intention.

If members of the opposition are opposed to this legislation, rather than seeking to defer its introduction until 2015, they should just oppose it. They cannot come here and say they support it and yet seek to defer it indefinitely, and I would suggest to members of the opposition that there is a sniff of hypocrisy about that position.

In general terms, the debate about animal welfare is always a difficult debate. It does excite passions on both sides, and it is an area of human intercourse where there are extreme positions on both sides. I am not for a moment suggesting that any member of this house has an extreme position, but there are extreme positions in the community in relation to this. The member for Stuart referred to some interaction he has had with members of the Animal Liberation organisation. I have also had interactions with members of that organisation.

Some of them are more reasonable than others but, at the last state election, I had a candidate—I am not too sure if she was from that organisation, but she certainly ran an anti-rodeo platform—who canvassed reasonably hard for somebody from a minority point of view. She had posters up in my electorate.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: I had one, too!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I know. She had posters in my electorate. She or one of her supporters dressed as a horse and held a placard outside my electorate office, which is on a busy road, to try to influence me in relation to the issue of rodeos by influencing my electors. I spoke to her and I tried to be civil to her, but in the end she decided to run against me and ran this fairly negative campaign. There were seven or eight candidates in the electorate of Kaurna at the last election, and it is very interesting to note that she came last amongst all of the candidates, including one person who stands for every ballot that goes past whether it is local, state or federal government and who campaigns with no more than signs on his front fence, and he received more votes than the person who had signs up in relation to rodeos.

I do not think the position put by that particular clique is one that has broad appeal in the community. However, I think there is a general feeling in our community that animals deserve to be looked after, and I agree with members opposite who promote the position taken by most farmers in this state that they do care for their animals. They not only care for them out of self-interest, in that their livelihood depends on looking after the animals, but I think they are humane people who understand the needs of animals and genuinely want to look after them.

This legislation is not about those people; this legislation is about people who are not humane, who are cruel and do things which hurt animals, sometimes in a systematic way. We have seen a number of cases in recent times of what are now called dog hoarders or cat hoarders, people who have many animals that they do not know how to look after or to whose needs they are indifferent, and those animals suffer cruel conditions. So, you do need a legislative framework to deal with that.

It is interesting to note that the RSPCA was established in Great Britain in 1824 by 22 members of parliament. At the time, as the Labour Party was not around, I can only assume they were from the Liberal party of the day—that is, the Whigs. The proponent was a man called Richard Martin MP who was known as 'Humanity Dick', which I think is a great name, and he was supported by William Wilberforce, who led the campaign to get rid of slavery, and Reverend Arthur Broome. Their reason for introducing this legislation was, in fact, because of cruel farm practices. So, the RSPCA was established because of farming practices, not because of interest in the behaviour of people who had domestic pets. I think over time the focus of the organisation has really been about dogs, cats, horses and so on rather than farm conditions.

Within the RSPCA I am aware of an interesting debate amongst those who want to have a much more radical position. Interestingly enough, that is led by members of the Liberal Party of South Australia or some of the former members of the Liberal Party, and I do not know whether they are all involved in it. Chris Gallus and Susan Jeanes and others have been active in the RSPCA, pushing for a much more radical stance by that organisation, but they have resisted it. What will help those radical reformers in their campaign in the RSPCA is if the parliament rejects the propositions that the government has put forward because that will demonstrate to the radicals that the RSPCA needs to get tough and become more militant in order to get change in legislation to support the positions that they put. I will leave that thought with the members on the other side.

This legislation tries to get the balance right. Contemporary standards, of course, by their very nature and definition change over time and what was appropriate 10 to 30 years ago is no longer appropriate, so there is a new set of standards. I put it to the house that these standards are by and large very sensible. I know we will have debate around the items moved by the member for Stuart and I look forward to those discussions, but I think it is reasonable legislation. I note that the opposition says it is in support of it in general terms, so I find it problematic that they are going to support all of the member for Stuart's amendments, including amendment No. 2 which, as I said, will have the effect of undermining the principal position which they say they take.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:58 the house adjourned until Wednesday 4 June 2008 at 11:00.