LIVESTOCK (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (11:25): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The House of Assembly has assented to the bill with some amendments and has rejected clause 30 as amended in this place, because fundamentally the government believes that the current arrangements where the government contracts to the RSPCA to undertake investigation and enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, with the support of PIRSA for livestock matters under a memorandum of understanding, is a sound system that has stood the test of time over many years.

The government does not believe that the unwieldy legislative change that was proposed through the amendments of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would improve this arrangement; in fact, we believe it would have an adverse effect. There is strong public support for the current system with the RSPCA as the primary body. Members would note that the RSPCA are publicly opposing the proposed amendment and refuting suggestions that they are unable to effectively police animal welfare issues in the livestock industries—and I also agree.

The vast majority of farmers look after their animals well and strongly support good animal welfare, but there are some who do not and, where there are allegations of cruelty, the RSPCA supported by PIRSA when needed investigates and deals with the matter as required. The RSPCA has reported that between May 2010 and 2012 (in a two-year period) they dealt with approximately 1,500 complaints relating to livestock. This is about 20 per cent of the total RSPCA workload. During this time there were 17 prosecutions relating to livestock, with only one being unsuccessful.

The RSPCA indicates that their primary approach is to educate and warn, and about three-quarters of these complaints resulted in verbal and written advice or letters of caution. The RSPCA indicates that they use prosecution only for the most serious cases of alleged cruelty and neglect. Any proposal to change the current livestock animal welfare system needs to be carefully considered, fully debated in public and ultimately supported by the community, not as it is currently being debated. The RSPCA were surprised, even shocked, that they were not consulted before the Hon. Mr Brokenshire made his proposal in parliament. As I said, this system has been operating well.

The RSPCA have always included livestock in their workload. PIRSA and its predecessor, the department of agriculture, and the police have always been called upon to assist especially in rural cases or where special expertise is required. Animal health field staff provide assistance to the RSPCA when requested under a memorandum of understanding, and this involves RSPCA, DENR and PIRSA. This assistance includes the provision of technical advice, autopsies, animal treatment, providing advice to livestock owners and assistance in prosecutions. I am advised that all Biosecurity SA animal health officers and veterinary officers have formal qualifications in agriculture and/or veterinary science. These courses include components on animal welfare, and sound animal welfare is conducive to sound animal health.

As a requirement for authorisation by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation of the Animal Welfare Act, Biosecurity SA field staff receive instruction on the content and enforcement of that act, which complements the training they receive in enforcing the Livestock Act. Biosecurity SA field staff are required to consider the welfare of the livestock they deal with on a daily basis. They also participate in emergency duties involving the welfare of livestock affected by disease, accidents and natural disasters. This role also involves continuing training.

PIRSA animal health officers attend a majority of livestock markets to check compliance with the Livestock Act. Animal welfare issues that are witnessed are either handled by those officers in attendance, if minor, or referred to the RSPCA for investigation if it is a major issue, in which case PIRSA officers provide witness evidence. The RSPCA frequently requests PIRSA officers to investigate reports from country regions to establish authenticity of complaints. PIRSA officers are authorised under the Animal Welfare Act for this purpose, as well as assistance in natural disasters affecting livestock, truck rollovers and the like. I want to make reference to correspondence recently received from the RSPCA In that correspondence, the RSPCA states:

Reflected in the Animal Welfare Act (1985) amendments of 2008 was the inclusion, amongst other things, of the introduction of Routine Inspection of the intensive livestock industry by RSPCA inspectors. Since that time, PIRSA and the RSPCA have worked collaboratively to ensure that my Inspectors achieve the required level of training to conduct routine inspections.

The RSPCA goes on to state:

At all levels PIRSA and the RSPCA work closely on animal welfare and health issues on the farm and in sale yards.

The Deputy CEO of PIRSA, Don Plowman, meets regularly with the RSPCA to ensure that they collaborate at all levels, not just the inspector level, and it is in this way the livestock of SA are managed for production, biodiversity, biosecurity and also welfare. The RSPCA goes on to state:

Where we tend to work alone is in the peri-urban/hobby farm environment where we act with regard to animals that are in lower numbers rather than large scale operations. If the RSPCA were to lose their powers of regulation over livestock, due to a change in the Livestock Act currently before parliament, this particular area of increasing risk would adversely impact on animals due to PIRSA's natural and dedicated focus on large scale farming. This is not a slight against PIRSA merely identifies how both agencies working as they do now can best serve the health and welfare issues of livestock...

There was a government amendment in the other house dealing with expiation, which I will explain briefly in this place. The house inserted a new government clause 30A, which has resulted from legal advice received after the introduction of the bill into parliament. This amendment will provide legal clarity regarding enforcement activity under the Livestock Act being able to occur more than six months after the commission of an expiable offence.

The Expiation of Offences Act 1996 limits the period of time for which an expiation notice can be issued. This restricts the period in which proceedings or prosecution can be commenced, despite section 82 of the Livestock Act 1997 providing two years in which proceedings for prosecution can be commenced. Due to the nature of livestock industries, it is common for expiable offences not to be detected immediately; for example, sheep and cattle can often move directly from interstate properties to South Australian properties.

The livestock require correct ID and health status documentation. However, detection of an offence commonly occurs at a livestock market six or more months after the offence has actually occurred. Similarly, regulations require that the movement of sheep, cattle and goats must be recorded on a national livestock identification system database within two days in the case of cattle and seven days for sheep and goats. Failure to comply with these requirements is often not detected until subsequent movement of animals occurs, often six to 12 months later.

So accurate and timely recording of livestock movement is critical for livestock disease control, particularly when dealing with exotic diseases. This amendment is about which act has precedence. This amendment will not apply to all expiable offences under the act. A regulation will be required to prescribe those expiable offences to which the extension of the expiation and prosecution period will apply. Only those expiable offences that are regularly detected after a period of time has passed since the commission of the offence will be prescribed.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Before I speak to the amendments I want to raise a matter of process. I noticed that the motion from the minister was that the 'amendments' be agreed to. I seek some guidance from the chair, given that the opposition has supported amendment No. 2 in the lower house but obviously we will maintain our position on amendment No. 1 in saying that we insist that that remain. I seek your guidance in that area.

The CHAIR: I can put the amendments separately.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Thank you. Further to that I reiterate the fact that the opposition will maintain its position in relation to the deletion of clause 30, which is the one referred to in amendment No. 1, and we will be supporting amendment No. 2 in relation to the expiation notices.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Given what the Hon. John Dawkins said, first, I place on the public record that we will also be supporting the amendment regarding expiation notices that the government brought into the house. When it comes to the amendment that I moved previously, I stand by that amendment. I want to take a few moments now to refute some of the arguments that the minister and the RSPCA have put.

First, I want to put on the public record, as I said earlier on in the council, that my focus is on animal welfare 140 per cent or 150 per cent—that is paramount—but my focus is also on government responsibility. My fight is not with the RSPCA at all, but the ball game is changing from how it was years ago. I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell will probably have something to say on this debate because it is interesting to note that years ago he was strongly critical of the RSPCA. I have not been critical of the RSPCA to the extent that the Hon. Mark Parnell has been. He was critical because he did not believe that the RSPCA was focused enough on animal welfare with respect to agriculture.

Now, of course, there is a recognised change in the policy side of the RSPCA and the Greens and the Hon. Mark Parnell are happy because they are seeing an infiltration and partnership arrangements between Animals Australia and others that is putting more and more pressure and focus on agriculture. I can understand clearly why the Hon. Mark Parnell is now totally transparent in being in favour of the RSPCA.

There are a few points that I want to raise. First of all, the ball game has changed because we were debating issues to do with biosecurity, animal health and, clearly, animal welfare. As recently as this week, sadly, we have seen two reported cases of Hendra virus outbreak in Queensland again. Farmers and the industry are putting money into this one way or another, either directly or indirectly. We will see come into this house some sort of increase again to biosecurity fees, even though the minister has, at this stage, backpedalled on that, for which I have commended her.

Notwithstanding that, biosecurity is here and there is a national structure and a state structure. As the minister has already said in her remarks today, when serious issues around agricultural animal livestock arise, the RSPCA needs the support of PIRSA. PIRSA has the expertise when it comes to large animals. The RSPCA do fantastic work—I am not saying they don't—but their work primarily, in my opinion, should be focused on the tens of thousands of cats, dogs, small animals, wildlife and all the rest; that is where I believe their focus should be. Vets today are not qualified to specifically work in the area of large animals.

They do postgraduate studies for that, and even in veterinary surgeon practices across rural and regional South Australia and Australia they employ specialist vets even on sectors of the livestock industry because it is that specialised. The Chief Veterinarian of PIRSA and Chief Inspector of the inspectorate arm of PIRSA are highly qualified, highly experienced people who can easily and adequately—and have done for decades—train and look after the inspectors and those other people out there in the marketplace and other places right throughout the state on an ongoing basis.

I want to say, while it is fresh in my mind, that there has been some criticism that I did not go and consult with the RSPCA. The democratic process has allowed plenty of time for the RSPCA to consider the amendment. Daily in this house we receive bills and amendments with no consultation whatsoever, not even with members of parliament, let alone the broader community. We had an opportunity to move an amendment; it has been a rigorous debate, and it has been healthy to raise the issues around who should be responsible when it comes to animal welfare, but the government should not be able to be let off the hook all the time and walk away from its responsibility.

In Queensland, as I understand it, the RSPCA role covers exactly what I have been proposing, that is, companion animals, riding schools, pet shops and other types of animal use where the keeping of livestock is not the primary business. In Victoria in primary industries the commercial livestock issues are handled primarily by the DPI and the rest by Vic Police, RSPCA and councils, but the primary focus in Victoria is again from the DPI. In the Northern Territory all prosecutions are done by the Northern Territory Department of Public Prosecutions. There may be opportunities to discuss whether the prosecution section of this should come under PIRSA and the DPP. These are things we could be looking at.

In Western Australia, back in 2006, they actually set up a new general inspectors area to improve animal welfare compliance in the Western Australian government (and that was a Labor government back in 2006). To their credit they set up under the local government and regional development portfolio an inspectorate enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, with particular focus on livestock through that government agency. To summarise here, there are plenty of examples around Australia where the primary focus for animal welfare, inspectorate and prosecution is with the government and not with the RSPCA. It is a mixture—I acknowledge that—but there are other governments like the amendment I have put up in this place.

The minister says that the RSPCA worked with PIRSA and, yes, they do and it is important that they continue to. But, let us look at the inspectorate costs and recoveries: $660,000 has been provided by the state government to PIRSA over the last three years—a flat figure—and in real terms the RSPCA has gone backyards financially when it comes to government contribution, the reason being that this government has not been prepared to fund the RSPCA adequately to do their work.

If you want to look at the graph, whilst you have seen in real terms a net reduction in money from the state government to the RSPCA, you see a significant increase over the last three years in costs to inspectorate and prosecution. In fact, in 2008-09 it was around $1.8 million approximately, but by 2020-11 the RSPCA spent $2.5 million on inspectorate and prosecution work and only received $660,000 from the state government.

This charity has to fund a net deficit of $1.5 million. Kind-hearted people across South Australia donate to the RSPCA, and there are other donation opportunities which help the RSPCA to pay for what the government should be providing. Where is that deficit going to be in a few more years, and how is the RSPCA going to be able to sustain that? Is the community of South Australia going to be happy for the money that they provide for shelters and the like to go into prosecution and inspectorate work for livestock? I do not think that they are going to be happy.

A whistleblower associated with the RSPCA told me recently that a hot water service broke down at the shelter at Lonsdale. That hot water service provided two things: a hot-water facility for the staff in their lunchroom area and a hot-water facility to be able to wash the animals' dishes. For eight weeks there was no hot water there. I have also been told that cats are sometimes fairly delicate regarding the types of food they like to eat, so a one-bag cat food does not fit all cats. I am told that things are so tight that officers working down there are having to buy specially prepared cat food for those cats that are sensitive to one type of food. They have to pay for that out of their wages. I do not blame the RSPCA for that.

Whilst the RSPCA has done well with a reserve, primarily through bequests, last year it had hundreds of thousands of dollars of deficit. I am not personally convinced that it is going to be able to turn that around. We live in a totally different world when it comes to the generosity of the community to bequest these days, and we live in a very tight economic environment, as we are going to see today. So, I had very sound reasons for moving this amendment.

I want to finish with just a couple of other things. First, I want to talk about prosecution and government. I am not aware of any prosecution that occurs outside a government department or agency, other than with the RSPCA. All other prosecution work has to come back through a government department or agency. I believe the government is irresponsible in not looking at managing this (as I have just highlighted), given that it has indicated it will not support the amendment.

In the pro forma that the RSPCA has put forward, where members of the RSPCA have been emailing members of parliament, one of the arguments is that PIRSA could not be responsible for managing the inspectorate—which they already do a lot of anyway, I might add—and the prosecution work for the livestock industry because there would be a huge conflict, and PIRSA would be more focused on economic development and agriculture growth and opportunity than the welfare of the animals. I totally refute that. I have worked with PIRSA all my life. People go into PIRSA because they are as passionate and committed about animal welfare and the love of animals and the growth of agriculture as are those people who work in the RSPCA.

The RSPCA admitted to me in a meeting that it was now starting to go down a line of more extreme support for some animal issues. The RSPCA does, when it suits it, joint press releases with extreme organisations, such as Animals Australia. The RSPCA is not extreme like Animals Australia, but it has told me that it is starting to go down that track more. If members do not believe me they should look on the website, where they will see a joint press release, with the Animals Australia logo on one side and the RSPCA logo on the other side.

The RSPCA has said that it is going to be more active in policy development, and that is an important area for the RSPCA; that is probably part of its primary role and focus. However, the RSPCA has said to me that it can put up what it describes as a firewall between all of that work it is doing and the relationships that it is building with even extreme groups at times (that is, Animals Australia) with respect to so-called animal welfare. They can put a firewall there so that when it comes to their inspectorate work and their prosecution work, no, that is totally separate. Yet they are telling us that PIRSA cannot do the same. I do not agree with that, because if the RSPCA can do it, then certainly PIRSA can do it.

I will just finish by referring to a few examples of where agencies do have this responsibility, because there are quite a lot where this happens. Firstly, PIRSA itself currently licenses and prosecutes mineral explorers. They license, they manage, they grow and they have the prosecution rights. The Office of Liquor and Gambling licenses gaming and licensed venues, also enforces breaches of their codes and also sends inspectorates around. The Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure licenses the transport industry, yet also investigates and certainly prosecutes truck and train drivers and their companies for breaches of the law.

A review of the prosecution landscape readily shows that the outsourcing of prosecution responsibility to a non-government agency and charity is the exception, not the rule. To say PIRSA would have a conflict of interest is to suggest that all government agencies have conflicts of interest with the bodies they license and regulate. I believe that this is a sound amendment and I am certainly committed to the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am not going to engage in debate with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire about the appropriate types of cat food that should be served at RSPCA animal shelters, because this issue before us is far more important than that. The Greens will be supporting the motion. We will be supporting both amendments, the amendment in relation to expiations and also the amendment that seeks to strike out the insertion of a clause by the Legislative Council into the bill which effectively changes the mission statement of the RSPCA. If this amendment was allowed to stand, the RSPCA's letterhead would simply say 'All creatures small'. It is a longstanding mission statement from the RSPCA: it is 'All creatures great and small'.

The Greens opposed the amendment when it was first put forward because we believe that the current division of responsibility between the RSPCA and other agencies is preferable to effectively handing over all responsibility for the welfare of farm animals to Primary Industries. The advantage we have had since that amendment went through a month or so ago is that the RSPCA has now been given the opportunity to correct the record in relation to a lot of the misinformation that was put out when this issue was first debated.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire points out today, as he did last time, that some five or so years ago I was very critical in this place of the RSPCA's track record in relation to the policing of animal welfare laws in respect of farm animals, and piggeries in particular. I do not resile for one minute from the approach that we took back then. In fact, I was joined in my calls by a large number of the rank-and-file members of the RSPCA who did believe at that time that the organisation was not paying sufficient attention to farm animals.

What members would be interested to know is that these prominent and longstanding members of the association, through the democratic processes of the RSPCA, have now managed in some ways to redirect the organisation back to its original mission statement, that is that all creatures great and small deserve our protection. I think the RSPCA has moved a great deal in the last five years or so, and I think it deserves our support to keep up this important work.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire inserts into the mouths of these thousands of members the fact that they must be unhappy with the status quo. They are not unhappy with the status quo. They are glad that their organisation, with its 100 years plus history, is in fact responsible for protecting all creatures great and small. The longer the Hon. Robert Brokenshire went on, the clearer his agenda became. It is not an agenda that is in support of animal welfare It is in fact the entire opposite. As his language went on—we started off with 'the infiltration of the RSPCA by extremes'—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: He used the word 'infiltration' and he used the word 'extreme'.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In both those sentences he referred to Animals Australia—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: That's nonsense!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —the 'radical', 'extreme' organisation Animals Australia, the people who brought to you the Four Corners program that disclosed to the Australian people what our animals were suffering in Indonesian abattoirs. Who put that stuff on Four Corners? Was it the Primary Industries department? No. Was it any of the state Primary Industries department? No. Was it the commonwealth officials? No. It was Animals Australia. Who was it? It was Lyn White, that former police officer from our state who made the shortlist for South Australian of the Year. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire should be ashamed of himself for maligning good South Australian citizens who are working hard for the protection of animal welfare.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: What a load of rubbish that is!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's agenda here is becoming very, very clear.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is now trying to—I look forward to seeing the Hansard and whether those words, 'extreme', 'infiltration' and references to Animals Australia, are going to be removed from the Hansard. I bet they won't be because the honourable member said them.

He debunked this idea of 'regulator capture' by saying that government agencies all over the place are often in an apparently conflictual situation and they manage it pretty well. I beg to differ. I have spent over 20 years working in this sector and I am not saying that 'regulator capture' is some sinister, deliberate plot; it is in fact a function of the fact that when an agency is responsible for both promoting and regulating an activity it is very difficult for those officers to get the balance right.

This is why the Hon. Robert Brokenshire talks about our mining authorities. I can remember one of the first public hearings I went to 20 years ago in South Australia was in relation to the mining department where there was clear evidence of breach of the mining laws. The chamber of mines (or whatever its predecessor was), rather than agreeing that their members had broken the law, said the law must be wrong and promptly got the Department of Primary Industries (the mining department back then) to get the law changed. There is a problem with agencies responsible for both advocating and supporting industry and having to police it as well.

I am glad that we have had this opportunity to come back and revisit this amendment. It was ill-considered and was not properly consulted on last time. We have now had the chance for more information to be put on the record and I think we should allow the RSPCA to, on behalf of us, continue their good work and I have every confidence that under the current leadership and with some of the changes that have been made over the last five years or so they will do that job well and do us proud. I will be supporting these amendments.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise to indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment and the government amendment. As a point of interest, I have been to a number of farms over the last six months and I cannot see the logic that is being expressed over and over again that somehow farmers benefit from neglecting their animals or not taking the best possible care of the animals that are there—yes, primarily to make them money—but if those animals are in poor condition and are not being cared for well, the farmer at the end of the day loses out.

I have not seen a farmer yet who does not hold those animals in the highest regard. I know the whole big thing about the piggeries that was all over Today Tonight, and the chickens and all the rest of it, but they are the minority within the farming community and the agricultural community. To have these accusations made (in this place especially) that somehow farmers are not only environmental terrorists but also are uncaring of their animals—that is the disgrace. These are our primary food producers. They feed us and they have absolutely nothing to gain by being cruel or neglecting animals that they pay good money for and that they breed in order to be able to achieve that. The Hon. Mark Parnell should be absolutely ashamed of himself for making those sorts of slighted accusations against the farming community.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: What his agenda is? The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is a farmer, and it is clear what his agenda is. Secondly, I have heard from top QCs in this state who are complaining about exactly what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire spoke about—the infiltration of extremist organisations not only through the RSPCA but via the Law Society as well. They are not proper lawyers; they are undergraduates, or whatever the term is. I have also heard that there are people leaving the Law Society in droves because of this.

So, to use the word 'infiltration' of organisations is not so far-fetched. We can make out it is yet another conspiracy theory if we like, but the truth is that the Green extreme is here and people are not appreciating it. The general community out there are not accepting it anymore either. In relation to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, farmers take a great deal of care with their animals. In the general population, there are a few people who neglect their animals, and it is the same with the farming community. There are a few who it gets on top of, and we saw the mayor down south with the sheep farm who was not able to keep up with the workload or the responsibilities.

Let us keep it in perspective. It is the minority. The RSPCA are not coping, and the other day on FIVEaa we heard someone who had started up his own animal shelter because the RSPCA is not out there in the country looking after injured animals, abandoned animals, kangaroos, wombats—all those animals that they were initially there to protect, to rescue and to nurse back to health. That part of their job is not getting done, and that is coming from people in rural South Australia as well.

Why would we want people donating to the RSPCA for animal rescue, animal husbandry or whatever? Why would they donate that money knowing that injured, neglected and abandoned animals are not getting the attention from the RSPCA they require? Why do we have so many other people out there now setting up animal shelters and rescues that are not being funded or assisted by government, if the RSPCA is coping well?

I know at least two people who have started up their own animal shelter because the RSPCA could not respond. It is no slight against the RSPCA. The fact is the workload is huge. But that was their focus; that should be their focus. Leave the farms to the farmers and let them deal with their animals; if there is any sign of neglect or cruelty, I am sure that the inspectors pick that up at the saleyards and take the appropriate action.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Unless they die before they get there.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: And cats and dogs do not die because the RSPCA cannot get to them, Mark. Kangaroos and koalas are not dying because the RSPCA is not able to rescue them. That is happening every day, that is a reality, and that is being reported to me. It is not just about farmers.

Animals die—that is a fact of life, things happen, but now to focus on farmers as not only environmental vandals and terrorists and say that now they are cruel to their animals, all in this clean green agenda we have running that 80 per cent of Australians abhor, I ask members to take a long hard look at that attitude we are showing in this place towards our primary food producers and farmers and to realign just a little.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Very briefly, I urge members that reason prevail in this debate. The current arrangements involve a partnership between the RSPCA and PIRSA. They work together in a collaborative way to ensure that the welfare and health of our livestock is managed well. The issue that we are debating today is the best model for those services to be applied. The current arrangements work really well. There are very few complaints about the current partnership between PIRSA and RSPCA—very few complaints from animal welfare people and very few complaints from the livestock industry. Generally speaking—I mean, there are examples from time to time—there are very few complaints.

The sectors are reasonably satisfied with what the current arrangements are. The RSPCA is well regarded and receives a high degree of public support. They are confident that they can continue to do what they do well, and PIRSA and the RSPCA clearly work together, as I have said. They have done so for many years, and this model allows them to continue in that working partnership.

The issues around welfare continue to increase in the minds of the general public. The general public are more sensitive to animal welfare issues, increasingly more sensitive, and they are better informed about animal welfare issues. Public expectation around animal welfare standards is always under scrutiny and pressure. That trend is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

I think it is critical, as minister for primary industries, and I think this is a particularly good model, having the RSPCA there that has a particular at-arms-length and degree of independence to it in collaboration with PIRSA gives a great deal of assurance and credibility to our livestock industry, and that is to the benefit of farmers and primary industry operators.

I think this is a good model. It has proven to be a good model; it continues to be a good model. Issues around funding levels is a different issue again. Are the current funds enough money to do what they should or could be doing? That is a separate issue. The amendments before us do not go to funding; it is a separate issue. We can argue about that, but this is actually not changing the funds available in any way, shape or form. We need to be clear: they, to me, are what the core issues are before us.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question based on the response of the minister. Is the minister and the minister's government intending to put more money into supporting inspectorate and prosecution work with the RSPCA, given that they are at least up to $1.5 million per annum deficit funding and getting that money from charities, or is the minister and the minister's government happy for donations and charities to find that $1.5 million so that the RSPCA can continue to do their inspectorate and prosecution work?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government has been comfortable with the current arrangements. Any changes to funding arrangements, as the honourable member well knows, need to go through appropriate budgetary processes.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a very quick comment, especially in light of the comments of the Hon. Ann Bressington and also the Hon. Rob Brokenshire (I have responded to him), but this debate is all of sudden being twisted into whether or not this is an attack on farmers and whether or not the Greens or anyone else are somehow attacking farmers. This is something that I completely refute, certainly on behalf of the Greens. It is not true that this measure is in any way an attack on farmers. Even in the subtext of all of this there is no suggestion that farmers are out there deliberately mistreating and being cruel to animals. That is completely irrelevant to the matter before us.

The motion before us is in relation to who should have primary responsibility for the enforcement of animal welfare laws that are part of the statutes of South Australia. In relation to the argument that, if we were to allow the status quo to remain, somehow that would be an attack on farmers, the only way that that would logically flow is if the proposition being put forward is that farmers are unfairly and unreasonably being targeted for their treatment of animals and that they need some relief by having a different agency (namely, the government) step in and take over, presumably so that they would not enforce animal welfare laws. That is the leap of logic that is required if the Hon. Ann Bressington's supposition is to have any validity at all.

Let's get back to what we are talking about here, and that is the appropriate regulatory authorities. This is not an attack on farmers. In fact, I would think that most farmers who care for their animals and treat their animals well would support laws that weed out those small number of people who do the wrong thing. The situation we have at the moment is that the RSPCA has that responsibility; where big cases are involved, it can call in assistance. We also have the situation where I think all South Australian police officers are also authorised officers under the animal welfare laws. There is a range of other players in this. But let's not pretend that by allowing the RSPCA to continue its work we are somehow attacking farmers. It is not a logical consequence of the amendment before us.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Having listened to the debate, I indicate that I will be supporting both amendments.

The committee divided on the question that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendment thus agreed to; motion carried.