PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (ANIMAL WELFARE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3412.)

Clause 2.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 3, line 6—Delete 'a day to be fixed by proclamation' and substitute:

1 January 2015

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that there is adequate discussion, understanding and education. It will give those involved a reasonable and appropriate time to come to terms with what is proposed, and those who are insisting on these changes a chance to go and look around the world and see what is taking place and not take any notice of malcontents and others.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I have to respond to that comment.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: I think it is a very good amendment.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yes, I understand. The effect of this amendment would be that the legislation, which the opposition said it generally supports, would not come into existence until 2015, which would in fact contradict the legislation. The member for Stuart has already said the opposition is committed to changing the legislation so, presumably, this is a device to stop the legislation having force until some optimistic point in the future when the Liberal Party eventually returns to government.

Mr Venning: And we will.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The Liberal Party may not exist in the future. There are talks of amalgamations. Of course, you may have some new conservative force. But, whatever conservative force exists in the future, if it gets into office and wishes to change the legislation, good luck to it. That is the thing about democracy, of course. But, we want it to come into force while we are here. So, we oppose the amendment. I will be interested to see whether the opposition seeks to divide on this particular measure, because I would love to see how members on the other side vote.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 3, line 14—After 'welfare' insert:

; to regulate practices involving animals in a way that may have significant impacts on activities such as farming and rodeos

This is the farmers' clause. I did have some difficulty getting some of these amendments drawn up. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of the people who were going to do it for me.

We want to make it quite clear that this process does not interfere with those people who are involved in intensive farming practices. The member for Goyder has them in his electorate when you go to Wallaroo or Snowtown. I have got them at Robertstown, Eudunda and Burra. There are these big developments and, if common sense does not apply, then you will not have them—they will be gone. It will have a very detrimental effect on those small communities. If members do not understand this, they could cause problems. Some of these provisions, in relation to the unreasonable requests they want to put on rodeos, are unnecessary and unwise.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The government does not support the amendment. The amendment seeks to put argument which reflects the positions adopted by the member for Stuart. I think the record will adequately demonstrate his position without changing the name of the legislation.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 4, lines 19 and 20—Delete paragraphs (d) and (e).

The purpose of this amendment is to delete two particular events (which can be considered events at rodeos) so that they can hold these events without having to go through the process which will now be put in place. These events—steer riding and roping or tying—are very important in relation to rodeo events around the world. If these events are excluded and people cannot participate in them, then they may be excluded from participating internationally in Canada and the United States. It is a nonsense, put here at the behest of well-meaning, misguided and out-of-touch people.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: This is at the heart of the member for Stuart's objections to this legislation. The bill amends the existing legislation to include two activities—steer riding and roping or tying—in order to allow regulation of those activities and the legislation sets this out. I understand other areas, such as saddle bronc riding, bareback bronc riding and bull riding, have been subject to regulation for some time. I understand that, as a result of those regulations, those events and activities still occur; so it does not stop those acts occurring. It merely allows regulation of those areas in order to ensure they are done in a way that is not harmful or injurious to animals.

I accept the point the member makes that this adds extra burden on those who run rodeos to demonstrate that they can comply with the legislation, but I think it is a reasonable addition. The government is not opposed to rodeos and it is not trying to stop rodeos occurring. It is just trying to ensure they happen in a way which looks after animal welfare. The extension in these two areas is consistent with the areas of regulation that already exist.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

Page 8, lines 24 and 25—Delete 'the training prescribed in the regulations as relevant to their conditions of employment' and substitute:

training as prescribed by the regulations.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated the opposition's support for this amendment—for which I am grateful. I understand the alteration was a necessary consequence of the government in the other place accepting an amendment from the opposition. This clarifies what was intended. I understand that it is agreeable to all parties.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 10, line 18 [clause 12, insert section 30(2)(a)]—After 'Act' insert:

and, if the powers are to be exercised in respect of premises or a vehicle being used for the purposes of a rodeo, with the agreement of the designated rodeo veterinary surgeon for the rodeo.

There has to be a veterinary surgeon present. It appears to me that logic and common sense will apply if a veterinary surgeon is involved. Therefore, this is a fair, reasonable and sensible amendment, which most reasonable people would accept, and perhaps the extremists would agree with it. At the last rodeo that I went to, when you had these crazy people who wanted to photograph you, I was with Dr Lloyd from Quorn, a well-known and respected doctor throughout the community. He thinks these things are crazy. You do not have to take my word. I suggest you go and ask him. He is a highly competent and highly respected person throughout the community. He is a highly qualified doctor, as the minister would know.

It was interesting that when the doctor went to vote at the last state election, someone handed him a Democrat how-to-vote card, and he said, 'The anti-rodeo people'. These are reasonable things, but with this blatant attempt by the bureaucrats to get their way and not accept any of these changes, all they are doing is making a bed of thorns for them to lay on. That is all I will say.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Once again, the government does not accept the amendment. The amendment would give the local vet, who is appointed by the rodeo manager to supervise the rodeo, the right of refusing access by an independent inspector. I think that would put the vet in an extraordinary conflicted situation and subject to incredible pressure from the manager or owner of the rodeo, because future work might be denied if they were to accept that an inspector should come on the property. That is an unfair set of arrangements no matter how honourable, credible, or well trained the veterinary expert.

The other point, of course, is that a vet is not a trained inspector. A vet is trained in providing services to injured animals, so using a different skill set is required. While in some ways I understand the point that the member is making, I think that, for the reasons I have just given, the government will have to reject it.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I think that most reasonable people would accept that the vet is more qualified than some inspector. The vet is dealing with these sorts of animals probably on daily or weekly basis. I put it to the minister that they have a better understanding of animal behaviour and the latest methods in animal handling and husbandry than some inspector, who has been given a crash course and a rule book to read, and who is really out of their depth.

All I say to the minister is: we beg to differ. I will not force the issue any more. We have put our case very clearly. We have clearly put to the committee the difficulties with this legislation. Obviously, those who are behind it on this occasion will get their own way. But, I repeat: the wheels continue to turn. Some of us will be going to the rodeos and watching, and some of these people in the department will get busy when dozens of questions are put on the Notice Paper. That is what will happen.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Let me try again to respond to—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Ask the member for Morphett; he will confirm it.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: More than others in this place, the member for Morphett would understand what an awkward position a vet would be put in if he or she was at the rodeo doing their job and then put in a position of having to assess whether or not it is appropriate for an inspector to come in and do his or her job in the heat of the rodeo. I think that would put the vet in a very difficult position because, not only would they have to keep an eye on their normal responsibilities, which is the welfare of the animals, they would have to keep in their head whether or not an offence was committed. What if the vet, in the circumstances, made an error? You could see a whole range of legal actions involving the vet.

While I appreciate that vets are skilled people and may well understand animal welfare better than others, this role the member is attempting to put a vet in is not a veterinary role, it is a judging role—and I think that is an unfair imposition on a vet in the circumstances they would find themselves in.

The other point I would make is that, if the vet is the expert, as you say, employed by the rodeo but as an independent person, if an inspector came along and made a finding or made a decision in relation to a particular action, the vet would be a very good witness for the rodeo in any ensuing action. If the vet was put in the position of judging whether an inspection should occur, I would think that it would, to some degree, undermine the capacity of that vet to be a witness in a subsequent court action.

While I appreciate the point the member is making that you do not want to see inspectors come in without due purpose, cause and reason and all of the rest of it, it would be putting the vet who is in a position to do a particular job in an unfair position to ask them to do this additional job. I think it is best that we allow the inspector to be an inspector. It would be like having a vet stopping a police officer from coming in if a police officer thought there was something going on that was illegal—because police officers can apply the laws of this act as well as any inspector. Clearly, you cannot restrain a police officer in their duties, and nor should you, and exactly the same principle should apply here.

Dr McFETRIDGE: As a vet, I have to buy in on this one. I am very sympathetic to the member for Stuart's amendment. Dr Kelly and I—and, in fact, all vets—are not only trained in veterinary medicine and surgery, we are also trained in the rules and regulations that go along with animal production and meat hygiene. You are taught to inspect premises if for no other reason than that the animal production systems going on are conducting the business in such a way that the animals will be produced to the maximum benefit of the organisation or, in this case, that the animals are not only being treated well and their welfare is being looked after but also that the facilities the rodeo organisers are using are suitable so that animal welfare will not be detrimentally affected.

I would be very surprised if vets who are familiar with large animal work (and most vets who are involved in rodeo work are involved with large animal work) could not offer an expert opinion on the quality of the premises, the way in which the facilities were constructed and used, the way in which the animals were being put through the various chutes. I have seen some pretty ordinary sets of rodeo equipment around the place, both in Australia and overseas, and I have seen some excellent facilities. You can make that judgment as a vet. I am very sincere about the comments I have made here today, particularly about animal welfare and how it is a narrowing of the scope of what could be seen as the aims of this bill.

In this case, while I appreciate the minister's comments about the fact that the vet is employed by the organisers of the rodeo and that it does compromise the vet as a witness, I have to make the point that I think the vet could offer the inspector an opinion that the inspector should note. I would be very, very disappointed if that inspector did not give serious consideration to the vet's opinion before they made any decision, because I think the vet would win.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 11, after line 11—Insert:

(6) In this section—

Designated rodeo veterinary surgeonfor a rodeo means the veterinary surgeon designated in the application for the permit to conduct the rodeo as the veterinary surgeon who will provide veterinary treatment at the rodeo or, if that veterinary surgeon does not do so, the veterinary surgeon who acts at the rodeo in the place of that veterinary surgeon.

Again, this amendment deals with the treatment of animals and veterinary surgeons. I think the amendment adds to the bill.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment. We opposed the first amendment in clause 2, and we oppose this amendment for the same reason.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 15, after line 36 [clause 12, inserted section 31E]—

After its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) An inspector, or a person assisting an inspector, who—

(a) addresses offensive language to any other person; or

(b) without lawful authority, hinders or obstructs or uses or threatens to use force in relation to any other person, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $5,000

This particular amendment has been included in many acts of parliament. The minister can argue as much as he likes, but there is no reason this amendment should not be in the bill. It is included in acts of parliament the minister himself has administered. It is good enough to include in an act all these sorts of powers that could be applied against volunteers. What happens if one of these inspectors who is too full of their own importance suddenly becomes disruptive? Surely those people have a right to object in a democracy where free speech applies. The amendment refers to 'offensive language' and 'without lawful authority, hinders or obstructs or uses or threatens to use force in relation to any person, is guilty of an offence'.

What is wrong with it? There is nothing wrong with it; it is fair, reasonable and sensible and therefore it ought to be in this act as it ought to be in all acts of parliament. People are having their rights eroded by bureaucracy. Why should this not apply? This amendment is in very many acts of parliament; the only reason that the bureaucrats do not want it is petulant, in my view—miserable and petulant. They can like it or lump it as far as I am concerned, and it will continue—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I love it when you talk dirty, Gunny.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, I am just telling a fact. The minister knows as well as I do that this particular clause is in many acts of parliament but because of Sir Humphreys 1, 2 or 3 or whatever category you like to call them—I do not care—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Do you want me to go?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: You can help me, because you would agree with me that some of this is nonsense.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Good on you. I thought that someone had some common sense on that side, and I give the minister full credit, but those who are pulling the strings can wear the consequences, because let me say to you—and this is a good clause to say it—if these people come along, we will find out how many hours and minutes they were there, how many kilometres they had done in their motor car, what instructions they were given, whether they were given instructions—it is unlimited, because these people are going there to hinder, harass and interfere with good living South Australian citizens. Two people can play the game, and obviously if no-one accepts these sorts of very reasonable amendments, then two can play the game, and I am going to play the game, I will tell you.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Despite the threats in that speech, I indicate to the house that the government does not support this amendment. I do agree with the member, though, that it is in many pieces of legislation and, on this occasion, the other place did not carry it, which is interesting. We are certainly not carrying it in this house, as the member would know. Inspectors, as ministerial appointments, must abide by the Public Sector Management Act 1995 and the code of conduct for public sector employees. This ensures appropriate and lawful behaviour and provides penalties for inappropriate action.

It is appropriate that public servants are managed by one act, and that is the Public Sector Act. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has the authority to investigate allegations concerning the behaviour of any inspector, and the funding deed in the memorandum of understanding spells out the requirements that the government expects of its inspectors and of the RSPCA in its role as their employer. This arrangement has served the people very well for many years and will continue to do so. The other point I would make, of course, despite the implied threat in the member's comments, is that this house is capable of answering and dealing with any alleged breaches of the law, and the member is entitled, as is any member, to raise those issues at any time in here in any way he chooses.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The minister knows that I am a retiring character, and it takes a lot to get me on my feet on these sorts of occasions. Therefore, it will take a lot to get me into these matters, but at the end of the day what Sir Humphrey and the minister appear not to understand is that the average citizen is at a tremendous disadvantage when confronted by the government, its agencies or its inspectors. The average person does not know their rights. They can quite often be intimidated by these people whether or not these people do it intentionally, but they are not aware. They do not have access to legal representation.

Look what happened to that poor person at Clare who ended up in the Magistrates Court. If ever there was a shameful act which brought discredit on all those associated with it, that was it. A volunteer was dragged before the court, and he had done absolutely nothing wrong himself, but he was dragged before the court at the behest of some of the people and he was out of pocket. Then the RSPCA dropped the case, but they gave him no compensation for his out-of-pocket expenses, and that is absolutely appalling.

Here you are; the rodeos' volunteers are raising money not to provide it for lawyers. Heaven help me! I have made the point. We will vote on it, and people can say that I have made threats; no: I have just stated facts. I come from a small, isolated rural community and I understand the difficulties these people have, and I understand that they are entitled to stick up for themselves. In this world when bureaucrats get their own way on unreasonable matters, it always catches up with them. It will come back to bite them, and this is what is going to happen at the end of the day.

Mr VENNING: I just want to support the member for Stuart very strongly and say how much the party appreciates his position on this, particularly this clause. I will be using this in my electorate for publicly supporting rodeos, and I thank the member for Stuart for doing the work and being a keen supporter of rodeos, not just here but on the world scene.

The attention to detail from the member for Stuart is well known and, as I said yesterday in this house, that is the reason that he is here after all these years in a marginal seat. Let it be a lesson to all members that good representation goes against electoral trends. The member for Stuart can retire in two years' time—and we are very sad about that—with some comfort that he has looked after the little people. This is one prime example of that. We certainly support the member for Stuart.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (12)

NOES (27)

PAIRS (6)

Majority of 15 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 13 and 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: My objection is that the penalty is excessive and unnecessary and will particularly affect volunteers. By putting this amendment forward, I have made my position clear; that is, it is an unnecessary and quite vindictive approach to these people. I have tried to highlight the vindictiveness of this proposal by way of suggesting an amendment that it be reduced. I will not be moving my amendments Nos 7 and 8, but I will certainly be moving my amendment to clause 18.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 17, after line 38—Insert:

41—Prosecutions.

(1) A prosecution for an offence against this act may only be commenced by—

(a) an inspector; or

(b) a prescribed person or a person of a prescribed class.

(2) In proceedings for an offence against this act, an allegation in an information or complaint that a person named in the information or complaint was or was not, at a specified time—

(a) an inspector; or

(b) a prescribed person or a person of a prescribed class,

is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of the matter alleged.

This is an important amendment. It will prevent the sort of nonsense and untruthfulness that is occurring. These animal liberationists and other extremists are bringing frivolous and quite outrageous prosecutions against good, decent people. We know that some of these people have the most peculiar backgrounds and their own involvement with animals is nothing of which to be proud.

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: For the benefit of the member for Mitchell, my understanding is that one of these particular proponents has been barred from all the veterinary practices in Gawler. They do not want to see sight nor soul of that crazy woman. That is the woman who was put in the horse trough. I am not surprised she was put in there because I know exactly what she did. As I said on another occasion and I repeat: if I had been there, I would have clapped, too, because she certainly looked to me as though she was allergic to water. They go on with the most crazy behaviour and cause a great deal of difficulty for the people running rodeos.

This Mr Hanheuser, or whatever his name is (the character who stood against the member for Davenport), is the same person who polluted stock feed at Portland for the live export sheep going to the Middle East. These are the sorts of people you are dealing with. They have no sense of what is fair and reasonable. They have no ability to understand that thousands of people are enjoying themselves at these events that are properly run by volunteers who need our encouragement, assistance and support. They do not need unnecessary harassment and interference. This amendment relates to prosecutions that are fair, reasonable and appropriate.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I understand the point the member for Stuart is making. The advice I have is that this is a standard right that any member of the public has in South Australia in relation to most legislation, that is, any individual can pursue a member of the public who has breached the law when it is a summary offence. For example, if I saw the honourable member crossing the road, jaywalking, theoretically I could pursue him in that regard, or if I saw him throwing rubbish away or doing any of those things, I could pursue him. However, very rarely does one do that.

It is an important principle because it means that if one of these inspectors, whom the honourable member has criticised so sharply, were in breach of this legislation (for example, if he was doing something improper such as keeping an animal in a car, not watering it or doing one of those things), a member of the public could pursue that inspector. It is so the Crown is potentially subject to the same penalties as any citizen. It is an important protection of the rights of the community to allow it to have a go at government, if you like.

Clearly, it is a power that potentially could be misused, and it is up to the courts to ensure that that does not happen. But to deny third party rights would mean that only inspectors could have those rights; and, if that were the case, there could well be abuse. As I say, my advice is that this ability is generally unfettered in South Australian legislation.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: What the minister fails to indicate to the committee is that an inspector has the protection of the government, and any individual who would attempt on one of these matters to take someone to court must either have very sufficient financial means or have a legal background, otherwise it is beyond their capacity. I will give the committee an example. A constituent of mine has been accused of using a mobile telephone when that person does not own one, he is deaf, he does not know how to operate one and he has two witnesses.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: He will get off.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: But to get a lawyer will cost him between, he is told, $800 and $2,000. The bureaucrat is protected, the ordinary citizen is at the beck and call of—

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The minister ought to be grateful. He is making pretty good progress, but if he gets me wound up I could take him through the process for sometime. Why should these crazy people be allowed to go about the country tormenting, harassing and hindering the volunteers running these things? I thought this government supported volunteers. The government has a Minister for Volunteers, heaven help us. Where is she today? Volunteers run all these things, and you have community members who provide all the other facilities but you want to let these crazies take on some poor person who does not have the financial means to defend themselves.

The government runs the risk of those people getting prosecuted, even if the prosecution is quite frivolous. These people make things up. They run around with their video cameras and they doctor the videos. We know that. They have no sense of fairness or reason. This amendment seeks to protect those people. The experience at Marabel, in the electorate of the member for Schubert, ought to be a lesson for anyone, not just for members here who have the benefit of knowing what the law is, who have the means and the ability to defend themselves personally. I think it is pretty mean of us, particularly when these people are running these events for the good of their little communities.

They are under enough economic strain and difficulty out there now without having to put up with the sort of nonsense that some of these people carry on about. They race around the place. They have had to change the rules about who can video at these rodeos. The people running them claim copyright—at Wilmington and places—because of the scurrilous way these people went about taking and then altering the videos, trying to make out people were committing offences that had not taken place. It is a pretty reasonable and fair amendment to protect volunteers, and I am surprised that the minister will not support it.

Mr VENNING: I support the member for Stuart on this issue. We had an incident at Marabel involving a volunteer who happened to be the public officer for the rodeo. He comes from a very respected family in that community. In fact, he is a Rowett—a very well-respected name in that community. I thought it was absolutely gross that charges were laid against him as the public officer for the Marabel Rodeo. He is expected to pay his own legal fees and pay the fine, if it is ever levied against him.

I find this offensive. Who is going to be a volunteer at a rodeo if you can be personally liable like this? You are going to kill this; you are going to kill it dead. This poor person who would never have broken the law in his life rang me and said, 'Ivan, I'm liable for this according to them.' They made some pretty strong accusations against the rodeo and, as the public officer, he had to wear it. I find that offensive and, quite candidly, just blatantly wrong, and not fair.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (12)

NOES (27)

PAIRS (6)

Majority of 15 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

Page 18, line 23—Clause 20, insert section 43A—Delete 'the action' and substitute:

any action.

I am advised that the amendment to this section is to ensure that, if a person reports to an inspector an alleged contravention of this act, the inspector must, at the request of the person, inform the person if practicable of the action proposed to be taken under the act in respect of the allegation.

The wording of this amendment presupposes that an action will be taken. This current amendment clarifies that, if requested and if practicable, an inspector needs to inform a person of any action proposed to be undertaken. It may be that no action is proposed to be taken in response to a complaint such as if a complaint is vexatious or malicious. This means that if an action is proposed to be taken, then, if requested and practicable, an inspector must inform the complainant. I understand this is supported by the opposition, and I thank them for that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (16:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank the house for its support of this legislation. It has been an interesting debate, which I have enjoyed. I take this opportunity to thank my advisers today—Janice Goodwins; Peter Croft and Bob Innes; and also Dr Deb Kelly from the Department for Environment and Heritage; and Shirley Fisher, parliamentary counsel. I thank them for their assistance. I commend the legislation to the house and thank the opposition for its in-principle support of the measures contained in this legislation as outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday during the preliminary stages of the debate.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:39): I am glad to note the passage of this legislation to improve the enforcement of animal welfare provisions in South Australia. The opposition, led by the Hon. Graham Gunn, (the member for Stuart), has sought to play out a rear guard action in relation to the practice of rodeos, but the majority view, I have to say, at least in the city of Adelaide, is that they need to go, because there is too much harm to animals in the process.

The concern that I had with the legislation was that it was a missed opportunity to take a completely different tack in relation to enforcement. I strongly suspect we would be better off if the police, that is, SAPOL, was responsible for enforcement of animal welfare provisions. It is true that it is a specialist area to look after the welfare of animals—perhaps to enter into farms, piggeries, chook yards and the like—but the reality is that there are many specialist areas which fall under the responsibilities of SAPOL, with special circumstances, special sensitivities and so on.

The reason, I believe, that the government has continued to persist with the RSPCA model for enforcement is that it is simply a lesser drain on the Treasury purse. Obviously, if SAPOL had those extra responsibilities, there would be additional funding required for SAPOL, and we certainly would not want to distract our good officers of the law from other matters pertaining to assaults on human beings and the like. But, I think essentially that policy decision is driven by economic reasons.

It is very interesting that constituents have contacted me about the funding of the RSPCA. One woman relayed to me an appeal for funds by the RSPCA saying that, 'Although we enforce the laws and we can get a $1,000 fine if someone has mistreated this poor little dog,' seen pictured, 'we do not get a cent from that $1,000.' While that is strictly true, on the other hand, there is an equivalent source of money from the government particularly for the enforcement functions of the RSPCA. So, the government, in a sense, provides the money for enforcement but allows the RSPCA to pretend that it does not, so that it can get in donation money on the basis that it is not getting the money from the fines which result from enforcement. So the RSPCA, you could say, has it both ways in that regard.

Nonetheless, the government has decided to stick with enforcement of animal welfare provisions by the RSPCA, and I am glad to see that the government has moved to increase penalties in certain respects. So, the bill goes in the right direction, and I realise that it is a controversial area. It seems to me that every time in this parliament—or at any level of government—the topic of cats, dogs, horses and farmyard animals is raised, there is heated debate, because they are creatures that we can readily relate to.

With those few comments, I note my support for the government legislation, and I am pleased to see that it will pass the lower house today.

Bill read a third time and passed.