Animal Welfare Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2024.)

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (21:13): I rise today in support of the Animal Welfare Bill 2024, which provides an update of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and seeks to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2017, and the Veterinary Services Act 2023 to better protect and prevent the harm of animals in South Australia.

At the 2022 state election, the Malinauskas Labor team promised to update and modernise our animal welfare laws to be consistent with the expectations of South Australians, because the vast majority of us really love our furry, woolly, hairy, feathery, scaly friends and we want them to be protected, whether they are in our backyards, our streets, the outback, our rivers or our oceans. We made this promise in recognition of the importance that animals have always played in our lives, in particular the companionship so many provided during the pandemic.

It became clear to us that existing animal welfare laws and the enforcement of those laws were not keeping up with our community's expectations. The bill before us today fulfils that promise, updating the Animal Welfare Act and introducing a number of related amendments to ensure these laws are consistent with contemporary practices, science and community expectations.

Our first step towards delivering this promise was to review the existing Animal Welfare Act with the support of the broader South Australian community. In early 2023, community consultation was sought via the YourSAy platform, which identified several reform opportunities. In April this year we again sought the views of South Australians on these proposed reforms to help guide the final bill we see before us today. Throughout both of these consultations more than 1,000 participants showed compassion and the very best in our community to provide a voice for animals.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank everyone who participated in this review, particularly residents in my electorate who participated in the consultation and took the time to share directly with me their views on how we can best protect and support animal welfare in our state.

To help better explain why the Animal Welfare Act exists and support its interpretation, this bill seeks to update the purpose and include objects in the act. Community consultation heard strong support for these inclusions, particularly the inclusion of principles that acknowledge an animal's ability to feel, perceive and have experiences and a person's duty of care.

Almost two-thirds of participants to the initial community consultation on the Animal Welfare Act agreed that the definition of 'animal' should be changed. In response, this bill seeks to broaden the definition of 'animal' to include fish, and the inclusion of cephalopods such as squid, octopus and cuttlefish when used, supplied or kept for scientific purposes. As the Deputy Premier outlined in her contribution, this bill will not affect fishing and aquaculture so long as those activities are carried out in compliance with the relevant legislation.

Community consultation broadly showed that a blanket exemption of fish from the definition was not appropriate and that South Australians expect fishing activities to be conducted in a humane way by everyone. This will ensure sharks and rays, which we have seen horrific things done to such as stingers or fins being cut off, are protected through this act.

The current Animal Welfare Act contains an implicit duty of care that this bill makes explicit: anyone who is responsible for an animal must make sure it has appropriate food, water and living conditions. This duty of care provision was supported by more than 80 per cent of respondents to the consultation on the draft bill. This provision also allows authorities to address neglect before an animal is harmed, empowering the RSPCA SA to talk to owners proactively.

Further reforms included in this updated bill include improving regulation, oversight and transparency of the research and teaching sector; increased abilities to administer and enforce the act; and contemporising the governance and administrative provision for the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. These reforms address community concerns by providing greater accountability and transparency, holding those who do not meet animal welfare requirements to account, and diversifying where advice pertaining to animal welfare comes from. This bill also seeks to create an animal welfare fund, capturing licence fees, fines and penalties to be put back into supporting and promoting animal welfare outcomes.

This bill also updates assistance to the RSPCA with a range of tools that will make enforcing the act much more effective, swift and animal focused. I am really proud to be part of a state government that provides significant support to the RSPCA South Australia, such as our $1 million funding commitment over the parliamentary term and an additional $16.4 million of funding provided over four years to deliver animal welfare compliance activities.

In accordance with community expectations, it is important that we not only update the Animal Welfare Act but ensure that penalties for breaching the act are appropriate and act as a deterrent. This bill includes fines of up to $250,000 or 10 years' jail for people who mistreat animals, a significant increase on the current maximum fine of $50,000 or four years' jail for the aggravated ill treatment of an animal.

In closing, I would like to thank the Deputy Premier, her team and everyone in the Department for Environment and Water for their work in bringing this bill before us today. Today, we deliver on yet another election commitment: this time, our promise to update the Animal Welfare Act. This reform establishes a significant boost to animal welfare outcomes in our state, modernising our laws to align with what our community expects. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (21:15): I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare Bill 2024. Coming off the land, I have been well aware of what we need to do in commercial situations not just looking after stock but obviously looking after working animals, like sheepdogs for instance. I have had a reasonable amount of experience with looking after beef cattle—we had Poll Herefords years ago—and then various breeds of sheep. You do have to do the right thing because, quite literally, there is no money and dead stock. People use various tools to assist them with the care of their stock, especially in combating lice in sheep, drenching against worms in both cattle and sheep and other activities to make sure that you keep them right.

From the outset, in discussing this bill—and I will ask some questions in committee around authorised officers, noting that police can be authorised officers under this legislation, and the RSPCA has been mentioned in the debate—I think it is interesting when you have a lobby group that is also the enforcer, and I have always had a problem with it. As I said, I have no problem with the whole concept of animal welfare but I do have a problem with having a group that is a lobbyist against various animal activities and then they are the enforcer of the legislation. Over time, we have seen mistakes made by that group when they have tried to put a case against people and the case has fallen over.

I will not go into particulars here but one thing that is interesting—and it is more than interesting for farmers in Western Australia—is that Anthony Albanese and his group in the federal Labor Party have an upcoming ban on live sheep. Live sheep is a trade that has been going on in this country for over 40 years and it has certainly improved no end in the management of those sheep. The issue is that even though the trade has got down to fewer than 600,000 sheep a year—and they are only going out of Perth; we used to trade out of Adelaide—it has a huge effect if this ban comes in, and it is having an effect already with things slowing down in that trade. Stock are having to be sent 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres away, whether they are getting traded as livestock to be kept or whether they are getting sent to a meat processor.

If the sheep can be put on a ship that is more regulated than it ever has been—and that is a good thing—to go in a couple of weeks to the Middle East under full control of vets, I just find it odd and at odds with the fact that the sheep will have to be on a truck for maybe 36 hours to come east, but that is what the proposed ban on live sheep is already doing. It is causing a major problem, as I said, not just for sheep farmers in Western Australia but for sheep farmers in the Eastern States because it creates an upset in the market.

As I said, I think that people who are pushing for this do not have any idea of the ramifications when there just is not the processing capability in Western Australia. It concerns me no end. Do not get me wrong: I know the transport companies that transport these sheep to the Eastern States and to South Australia do a great job. They spell the sheep if they need to. I know there are spelling yards at Nundroo on the Nullarbor as you come over from Western Australia. It still stuns me that this blatant banning of the live sheep trade comes in.

We saw it probably about 15 years ago when the Labor Party federally tried to ban live cattle to Indonesia. Certainly, that trade has improved no end in the management of animals going to Indonesia and also the management of them being processed in Indonesia. Again, there were a few simple facts that the federal Labor government at the time did not understand. Most people where these stock are going do not have any form of refrigeration, even though some came on the radio, and I refuted them because I was the state shadow minister for agriculture at the time. They said, 'No, there's no problem with people having refrigeration.' It was just basically wrong.

The other simple fact is that there have been attempts with various processing facilities in the Northern Territory to have meat processing facilities. We have the new one at Thomas Foods in Murray Bridge, which is an excellent facility, but there are situations around climate, around transport and around availability of workforce. The reality of what really happens in the real world some people need to take a good look at. As with a range of issues, it is pretty easy, no matter what the issue is, to judge from your comfortable chair in your lounge room, but you have to analyse the impact to industry, the impact to livestock and the simple fact that it can be very counterproductive if you have to transport those stock not just hundreds of kilometres because of the legislation but thousands.

Just while I am talking about Thomas Foods, I want to congratulate them once again for their work after the January 2018 fire in what they have built in their facilities so far with the cattle processing facility, where they can process 600 cattle a day. The whole set-up of soft cattle handling techniques was used with the influence of Temple Grandin from the USA, who is a very revolutionary lady. I would urge people to either look at the movie or read her book to see what she went through at the time as a young lady suffering autism who developed some of the best, if not the best, stock handling designed facilities in the world.

It was because of what she had to deal with as a young lady that she worked out what it took not to upset animals or humans, and it is really good. For example, instead of having just rails on yards, especially in corners or at the end of a run where you have to get sheep to the end of a run to turn them maybe hard right or left into a shed, you just have closed barriers or closed yards so that they cannot see any light and do not get spooked by something outside the yards. The yards are not in squares; they are either in circular configurations or they can be offset on an almost triangular basis to the main runway to load them. I can tell you she copped a lot of opposition from the older people involved in the industry in regard to this way of handling stock, but it is revolutionary and now utilised right across the world.

In relation to the bill that was introduced into this house on 11 September 2024, it is the primary piece of legislation that deals with the treatment of animals in this state. This bill, if enacted, will repeal the act and seek to modernise animal welfare laws so that they are consistent with contemporary practices, science and community expectations.

The bill focuses on seven areas, with an eighth area of focus on shelter licensing to be dealt with in 2025. I think that is an area that will need to be looked at in a realistic manner to know exactly what impacts that will have on livestock producers in this state. The seven areas of focus in this bill are:

updating the purpose and including objects in the act to better explain why the law exists;

better recognising animal sentience to acknowledge that animals experience both positive and negative feelings;

broadening the definition of 'animal' so that more types of animals are covered by the law, so the exclusion of fish has been removed and cephalopods such as squid, octopus and cuttlefish are included in the context of scientific purposes for scientific research;

introducing a duty of care provision to provide a minimum level of protection, obliging owners to provide food, water and appropriate living conditions;

improving regulation, oversight and transparency of the research and teaching sector;

increasing the abilities for enforcement on people who do not meet animal welfare requirements; and

modernising the governance and administrative provisions for the animal welfare advisory committee.

Certainly, I will be keen to see that producers get adequate representation on that committee.

The bill also recognises interstate animal welfare orders in order to prevent any harm from those coming in to South Australia from interstate. So if there is an animal welfare order, say, in Victoria, that will be recognised under this legislation in this state.

Our side of the house has received a briefing from the government and we have consulted with industry bodies, including Primary Producers SA, Livestock SA and the RSPCA. We do note, though, that there seems to be an apparent rushed nature to the preparation of the bill. We certainly want to investigate some concerns as we go through the bill.

I certainly note that lots of submissions were made to the government in relation to this bill. Certainly, Livestock SA, obviously with the common interest of looking after livestock, are generally quite happy with the bill, notwithstanding there are a few things they want specifically ironed out. That will be worked out through the committee process as to where that lands.

One part of this bill deals with the greyhound racing industry, which has had some unfortunate incidents in the not too distant past. But I do notice the resolve of Greyhound Racing SA to make sure that they get it right, and they are working very hard. They have the right people to help them.

We notice we have just passed legislation to have an inspector of that industry, and they will work extremely hard to make sure that all of the recommendations that came under the review of the industry are put into place, because they certainly want to keep that industry in place. There is the main track at Angle Park, a track at Gawler, a track at Mount Gambier and obviously a facility at Murray Bridge, which, when it was built, was about an $8 million investment. It also has a straight track now for greyhounds to obviously race in a straight line.

Another part of the bill, I believe, is to assist in the cutting out of puppy farms. I think we have seen some deplorable activities. You see people who have been brought before the courts, who are basically flogging dogs to death—generally dogs—just for their own benefit. It is certainly not for the benefit of the animal, so I applaud that part of the legislation, that appropriate registration and licensing is in place.

I note that a lot of the penalties for noncompliance have been increased. Certainly, there are some strong parts of the legislation in regard to vehicle entry, property entry, and breaking and entry, which are similar to the provisions in the fisheries act, I believe.

All in all, we generally support the bill, notwithstanding what I believe are some of the flaws in how it will be policed, but we will go through some of that in the committee stage. The name of the game is, if you want healthy animals, you have to look after them. The simple fact is, especially in the farming scene, if you do not have healthy animals, you do not make any money.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (21:33): I rise to speak on and contribute to this bill with a great deal of passion and concern, because my family, over many generations, have been great custodians of animal husbandry. They have been great custodians for the care of animals on farm and on show. What we have seen, I guess, is a level of concern from industry. What we are seeing is concern for the unknown, and what this will mean to those people who have dedicated their lives to husbandry and the care of animals. This piece of legislation has a lot of unknowns, and I think there needs to be a level of careful scrutiny and questioning.

Looking after animals and being custodians of them is always fraught with complexity. As for myself, as the son of a primary producer and the son of a stock agent, I have seen probably more than most when it comes to the care and concern for animals. What I would like to better understand is that we have seen over a thousand submissions to the bill, and it is clear that industries, recreational groups and the public have taken such an interest.

However, what it shows me is that there is a great level of concern for society. Society has always had the care and custodianship of their animals. Whether it is in-house, whether it is on-farm or whether it is in a commercial setting, I think we need to be much more careful in the way that we throw this piece of legislation around—whether it is for political advantage or whether it is for the betterment of the industry or whether it is, at the end of the day, for the betterment of the care and concern for animals.

We come to this place with a level of exercise and it greatly concerns me that what we are seeing tonight is that there is a collective of groups that have come together and want to put legislation in place that will impact on people's lives. It will impact on animals' lives, and I want to make sure that, when this piece of legislation goes through, it is thought through and is carefully considered so that it does leave a legacy for our future generations.

Some of the areas of concern over recent times have been—yes, as the shadow minister for rec and racing we have seen the greyhound industry brought into the fray through behaviour that has not been becoming to industry, and is also not up to what public expectation is all about. The bill draws from recommendation 33 in the greyhound racing industry independent inquiry. Recommendation 33 suggested that the government is to consider mandating the controlling authority for greyhound racing to report suspected breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. The bill includes special requirements for employees of Greyhound Racing South Australia to report any suspicious animal welfare offence to the minister.

I have been around this place for a considerable amount of time, and I have had the role of rec, racing and sport over a long period of time, but what I must say is that the passion, the dedication and the concern by the majority of the industry have been second to none. They love their animals, they care for their animals like no other, and they are putting a level of concern into this conversation so that we understand that the majority of the industry is doing the right thing by the animal, the husbandry, and the ongoing concern and care for the animals.

I met with Sal Perna last sitting week. He is a great ambassador for the industry. He is also a great administrator for the greyhound industry and he has been designated as the inspector to the industry. He is a careful, considered advocate for the industry, but he is also on both sides of the fence. He cares deeply for the management and making sure that the industry is there for the betterment of all concerned. He is getting on with the job. He continues to advise Greyhound Racing South Australia.

What I do want to get on the record is that he has asked me for a number of small journeys through the course of this inquiry and that is just to better understand, to get behind the gates to understand what the trainers are about and what the industry is about. That is what I am embarking on as a responsible shadow minister.

What I must say is that I have met with GRSA. They are genuinely concerned that the industry must change. The industry must be more responsible and the industry is responding to exactly that and they are working with the greyhound racing inspector.

I will move on to aquaculture and rec fishing. I need to better understand the definition of 'animal', which is expanding to remove the exclusion of fish from the previous Animal Welfare Act. The member for Hammond struggled to understand what 'cephalopod' actually means. It is a tricky word, but as a former minister I understand that they are squid, octopus and cuttlefish, and it is understanding the scientific circumstances and the challenge with those particular animals.

We all know that they live annually, so their life expectancy is around 12 months, sometimes it is a little longer. We need to understand how we can best support that species and how we make sure that as a human race we stand by them to make sure that they are there for a longer presence.

My understanding of the exemption for recreational, traditional or commercial fishing is that these activities will not be an offence if done in accordance with the Aquaculture Act or the Fisheries Management Act. The bill leaves ill-treatment in aquaculture and fishing activities undefined and left to be defined entirely by regulation. So what will that mean to the existence of the activity? What will that mean to the existence of management within that space? South Australia is home to 357,000 recreational fishermen, 1,290 commercial fishers and aquaculture licence holders. There is a huge economic and social contribution to our state.

I do not want to overcomplicate the issues with the numbers of rec fishers, the numbers of the commercial sector, as opposed to the number of fish in our oceans or waterways. But what we need to understand is we need to have a balance and we need to actually work with that balance to make sure that we get an outcome that is good for society. It is not about the good for individuals. It is not for the good of those people who actually want to be a part of a sector.

As responsible custodians, over a long period of time, we have to make sure that we actually deal with this issue. And it is about welfare. It is about the ongoing viability of the species, and what we are seeing tonight really does ask a lot of questions.

During the second reading speech the minister said, 'I can assure the house that fishing and aquaculture will not be affected.' What does that mean? What does that mean—'will not be affected'? Today? Tomorrow? Will it impact on my family? Will it impact on the conversation I have at the pub? What does that actually mean? That is why I need some reassurance that the legislation goes so far but that the legislation also has a level of care and connectivity to today, our future generation, making sure that it is a pastime, it is a business, if you like, but it is an industry that needs to be carefully considered when it comes to dealing with that pastime.

The aquaculture and recreational fishing sectors deserve answers. They deserve a reassurance. What I would say is that at the moment we have this gratuitous speak going on that does not give us any real certainty, does not give us any answers as to what this legislation will mean. Both the aquaculture and the rec sectors are looking for answers. They are looking for certainty. It is a huge economic contributor.

When dad or Bob or whoever it might be looks at investing significant money into a boat that might go out there, they will also look at whether they as a custodian want their son, nephew or other family member to go out there and be a part of that sector, to catch fish in the rec sector, and whether they hand over the baton to their son or their future generation to be part of a great industry, to be part of a sector that is really, really passionate about being good custodians. It is about taking home what you want to eat. It is also about releasing what you do not want to catch or what you do not want to keep. I think we need to understand that.

What does it mean to the rock lobster live trade? We have seen federal governments and state governments stand up and say the rock lobster industry is about to have a resurgence. What does that mean? What does that mean to the industry? What does that mean to South Australia? What does that mean to the rock lobster fishing industry?

Politicians are great at standing up and championing the cause, but what is this bill going to mean to the industry? What is it going to mean in terms of whether there is any detriment to the next generation being great custodians of a sector that is caring and sharing in the context of the live trade?

At the end of the day it is about live trade. Whether it is about putting a southern rock lobster or a northern rock lobster into a container and sending it overseas or whether it is about myself or my son going out there and catching a King George whiting or garfish, caring for it and giving it a standing ovation as you put it into an ice slurry and take it home to feed your family, I think we need to better understand exactly what these implications will mean.

Regarding aquaculture, we talk about ranching. We talk about the holding facilities. What is this going to mean for those industries? What certainty is this government going to put into those industries?

Are there barriers to catching a fish, tagging a fish, and putting it back into its natural environment? We do not know exactly what that means. That is an area of concern that I am most passionate about because, along with 370,000 other South Australians, I am a passionate rec fisher and I am constantly looking at ways that I can fish better, making sure that I can be as responsible as the authorities are asking me to be.

One of the other issues I want to touch upon is jumps racing. That has come and gone. Sadly, the jumps racing industry has been hit from pillar to post. It is a brutal sport but it does have an element of care and concern. A lot of those jumps racing horses have been ex-racing horses. They have been horses that have been cared for, loved and nurtured along the way. It is post racing into jumps racing. To phase out jumps racing after 2021 was a big hit to the industry.

The bill expands the definition of electrical devices to confine an animal. I have a lot of notes here but I am not going to expand on them. As a former Minister for Agriculture, my view is that containing animals with virtual fencing and putting tags on animals is the most humane way to manage animals without fencing. It is a humane way of putting animals into care and control and a management practice.

What does that mean for the ongoing opportunity to manage animals on pastoral lands or in confined areas? I think we need to be very careful of the way we jump at introducing legislation in this place. We need to understand the people and the farmers who are the custodians of those animals and what the care and control of those animals means.

The member for Hammond, I am sure, has owned many sheep and cattle, and so have I. We are caring and nurturing human beings. It should be noted in this place that there is a voice from afar that is discrediting the work that we do. We love the environment that we work in, but it really does concern me that we are getting a squeaky minority coming in from the left, or wherever they come from, who are having a controlling voice over what we are dealing with.

As the member for Hammond has said, live sheep shipping has been a part of my family's stable over many decades. My father, as a stock agent, contracted to export many hundreds of thousands of sheep over decades. There was no-one more compassionate than my father about the custodianship, care and control of animals.

Once upon a time we put sheep into a car carrier. We have moved on. We put them into purpose-built vehicles and today I think we should recognise the great custodianship, care and control of animals to society. I think it is very important that we do that.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Hood.

At 21:54 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 November 2024 at 10:30.