Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That the regulations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985, concerning rodeos, made on 16 August 2007 and laid on the table of this council on 11 September 2007, be disallowed. (Continued from 17 October 2007. Page 959.) The Hon. SANDRA KANCK Legislative Council The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:52): At the last state election, one of the election policies of my party was to introduce a bill to ban rodeos. I had the bill drafted but, once drafted, I talked to others about it and I came to realise that it would not necessarily produce the results I wanted. For instance, if a bill was passed to ban rodeos, another event with a different name but with the same activities could be staged. For instance, when I was a child there were not (as far as I knew) such things as rodeos, but there were certainly things called gymkhanas. It is feasible that if a rodeo, as a concept or as a word, was to be banned, then somebody could have a gymkhana and introduce some of these events. These are events that I deem as being cruel to animals. I had begun the process of looking at the activities to work out which ones should be banned, rather than rodeos themselves, and calf roping was one of those which I believed should be targeted. I congratulate the minister for having introduced these regulations and I welcome them. I have seen video footage of these events and even thinking of it makes me wince. Those calves do not look or sound happy. In fact, with the whites of their eyes showing, it looks to me like they are damned terrified. My view in regard to rodeos is, I think, fairly well known. However, when I was contacted by the Festival State Rodeo Circuit, which asked to meet me to discuss the issue, I agreed as part of ensuring that I was fully informed. I met with Mr Mark Heuritsch and Mr Andrew Brown. I was a little perturbed to be told by them that they had not been consulted. They state: As a member of the Festival State Rodeo Circuit Committee I was surprised to say the least to find out about this proposed change to the animal welfare standards. It would appear that this move has been kept very low key as hardly any of my fellow committee members and competitors were aware of this proposed change. This was also the case for the general manager of the APRA (Australian Professional Rodeo Association) who made a last-minute rush trip from Queensland. That is from an email from Mark Heuritsch of Mount Pleasant. This message was reinforced with the meeting I had with these two men, but I note that when she responded to the moving of this motion the minister said that the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer were deliberately misleading, lacked understanding or were just plain lazy. The problem with a motion is that it is not as if we were in the committee stage of a bill, where we would have a give and take and a right to respond, and that makes it somewhat difficult, although, of course, the Hon. Michelle Lensink can respond on behalf of the Hon. Ms Schaefer when she is summing up. I do note, however, from what the minister has said, that both Mr Heuritsch and Mr Brown were at the meeting on 8 July. It was not clear to me from what the minister said in her statement whether they were also in attendance at the meeting of 17 July. I ask the minister, in the interests of making sure that we are clear on the circumstances of this, that she table copies of the minutes of those meetings. I do not mind if this happens after the vote has been taken, but I certainly want to see the minutes so that I am really clear on this question of how much prior knowledge people had. The discrepancy about consultation is unfortunate, but in the final analysis my decision is based on the welfare of the animals. I have no evidence that, left in an undisturbed state, calves would provoke another species to bodily throw them to the ground and tie them up. I have no evidence that such a process is indeed enjoyable to those calves. To the contrary, my interpretation is that they are experiencing sheer terror. I also want to look at the regulations in their entirety, because this motion, as is the case with all motions to disallow regulations, effectively throws the baby out with the bath water. So, even if you believe that the calf roping section of the regulations was a bad thing, with the Hon. Michelle Lensink's motion you would be obliged to throw the whole lot out. Even if there was this breakdown in communication and the calf roping event was considered still to be desirable, there are other things in this set of regulations that make it justifiable to keep them in place. For instance, there is 13(h) regarding the regulation of use and care of rodeo animals. In part, it provides that an animal is immediately removed from a chute if the animal fails to enter the arena from the chute within 60 seconds after the chute gate to the arena is opened or more than once the animal goes down on a knee in the chute or part of the animal's hindquarters from or above the animal's hock touches the ground in the chute or more than once the animal attempts to jump from, climb out of, or otherwise escape from the chute or the animal is obviously distressed. To me that is an important regulation, and it is worthwhile keeping. There are other regulations in here, for instance, about flank straps. I cannot say I necessarily approve of flank straps and the way they are used in rodeos, but this specifically provides that if a flank strap is to be used it has to be lined, soft and flexible with a quick release mechanism and set such that the lined portion of the strap covers the flanks and the belly of the animal. Again, I think that is something that improves on the current situation and that the regulations should be maintained regardless of the other matters that have been raised by the Hon. Michelle Lensink. A breakdown in communication, even if it is proved to be the case, is not justification for allowing the continued terrorising of animals. I therefore cannot support this motion to disallow this complete set of regulations. Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. I.K. Hunter.