Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Parliamentary Committees Social Development Committee: Inquiry into Issues Related to Bow and Crossbow Hunting in South Australia Social Development Committee: Inquiry into Issues Related to Bow and Crossbow Hunting in South Australia The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI Legislative Council The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (16:21): On behalf of and at the request of the Hon. Dennis Hood, I move: That the final report of the committee, on its inquiry into issues related to bow and crossbow hunting in South Australia, be noted. The Hon. Dennis Hood is unfortunately unable to be here this afternoon and has requested that I speak to this report on his behalf. On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I thank the witnesses for their written and oral submissions and their contributions to this inquiry. In particular, the committee thanks the following animal welfare organisations and individuals: the RSPCA and its CEO, Mr Paul Stevenson, Dr Suzanne Pope and the Animal Justice Party of South Australia, Ms Louise Pfeiffer and Mr Daniel Gluche. The committee also thanks all of the individuals and organisations who support animal welfare for their submissions. The committee would like to thank the archers, arbalists and bow hunters and organisations they are represented by for their submissions. These include Archery SA, the Australian Deer Association and the Australian Bowhunters Association South Australia branch. Individuals include Mr John Clark, Mr Todd Wallace and Mr Mark Dibdin, who are thanked for their oral evidence, and the committee thanks all of the other organisations and individuals who provided written submissions. As Presiding Member, the Hon. Dennis Hood thanks the committee members and the secretariat for their work on this inquiry. The inquiry into the issues relating to bow and crossbow hunting was introduced on a motion of Mr Richard Harvey MP, a member of the committee, on 22 July 2019. The terms of reference called for a review of the legislation in South Australia that governs the ownership and use of bows and crossbows, how bows and crossbows are managed in the community and in relation to hunting activities. It also called for a review of the protections afforded to animals under animal welfare legislation and to examine how the other states legislate recreational hunting with bows and crossbows. The committee received 82 written submissions and held six evidence hearings. The committee has made 12 recommendations to the Minister for Environment and Water, and I am pleased to be noting the report today. The committee found there were three key issues that were at the heart of this inquiry. They are the availability and use of archery and hunting equipment in the community, how recreational hunting with bows and crossbows is regulated and whether bow and crossbow use are humane methods of dispatching animals. The committee found that it is possible to purchase novelty, poor-quality or suboptimal archery equipment online, or from some recreation and sporting stores, without regulatory oversight. This does not include crossbows, however, as there is a requirement under the Summary Offences Act 1953 for a person purchasing a crossbow to be over 18 years of age and provide proof of that, but it is currently possible to buy a bow and some arrows of questionable quality and do bow shooting in the backyard or indeed in the local park. The incidences of animals being shot with bows and arrows, such as those that have been reported in the media, the committee understands are likely to have been with these suboptimal bows and arrows. While such incidents are rare from the evidence received, they are likely to also have been carried out by persons not trained in the use of archery or bow hunting equipment, and they are therefore likely to cause more harm. The committee heard animal welfare organisations are concerned at the availability and use of these types of inferior bows as they inevitably result in poor outcomes for animals and have low prosecution rates due mainly to lack of evidence. Concerns were also raised by the archery and bow hunting organisations who do not want their clubs associated with such incidents. Archery SA, the Australian Deer Association (SA) and the Australian Bowhunters Association (SA) gave evidence that to the best of their knowledge such acts of animal cruelty are not likely to be carried out by members of their organisations and that bow hunters are aware of their obligations to the club code of ethics and under the Animal Welfare Act 1985; however, these clubs were also not against there being a training program put in place as part of an existing permit scheme and the introduction of a bow hunter code of practice. The committee also heard that the sport of archery is a popular one in South Australia and the ability to practise it freely within a genuine archery club setting is of great benefit to many individuals, communities and the state. Archery SA and archers alike claim tighter regulation on the legitimate purchasing of archery equipment could have a detrimental effect on the sport. The committee wishes in no way to negatively impact target archers; however, the committee considers removing poor quality equipment from being sold in retail outlets across the state, and having restrictions on the equipment being sold over the internet, is a good way to limit access to weapons that have inferior capabilities and can be purchased by persons with little or no experience in shooting a bow. To this end, it is hoped that the kinds of incidences described will be reduced and improve animal welfare outcomes without increasing regulatory burden for legitimate target archers and bow hunters to practise their recreational activities. The committee commends the work and enforcement activities of the relevant agencies under the Summary Offences Act 1953, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and the Animal Welfare Act 1985. In terms of regulation under the Summary Offences Act 1953, SAPOL gave evidence that police powers are sufficient under the existing legislation. The Department for Environment and Water advised that hunting-related offences or offences against native wildlife are rare, but authorised personnel are equipped to deal with them under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Where other animal harm offences are concerned, such as the incidences mentioned in the media, the committee acknowledges it is more complex due to the difficulties authorities such as the RSPCA experience in policing where, and by whom, such offences occur. The committee hopes that, without calling for wholesale legislative change, the recommendations it has made, such as tightening the sale and purchase of inferior archery equipment and increasing training and permit requirements for bow hunters, will go some way to improving animal welfare outcomes. The committee considers that to support and enhance these enforcement activities, collection of more data related to the sale of crossbows by SAPOL, and data concerning recreational bow hunting activities by the Department for Environment and Water, could be undertaken. The committee also considers there may be scope to increase penalties under the Animal Welfare Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act, and it has recommended that this could be reviewed. The committee understands, in terms of training for bow hunters, if a bow hunter is not a member of a recognised club, there is little in the way of appropriate training. The Department for Environment and Water published the guideline Modern Hunting in South Australia which aims: to encourage and enable hunters to hunt safely, responsibly and sustainably, and to contribute to conservation now and in the future; to provide information and advice about locations and species permitted for hunting; and to simply explain the rules and regulations for hunting in SA. However, there is very little detail in relation to the practice of hunting with a bow or crossbow. Having reviewed the regulatory requirements, policies and codes of practice in other states, the committee observed that there is a general shift towards improved bow hunter education and training, as well as regulatory compliance. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have tighter regulatory controls and greater training requirements for all bow hunters. The committee notes that New South Wales and Victoria have mandated bow hunting specific codes of practice. There is no code of practice in South Australia that is required by regulation or that is accepted as a model for bow hunters. The committee considers this could be reviewed by the minister with a view to introducing one in South Australia. Bow hunting organisations and some individuals who have provided evidence to the inquiry are supportive of this idea. The committee notes with interest that New South Wales and Victoria also have bow hunting specific permits and licences, something that could also be looked at for adoption in South Australia. The committee has recommended that the Department for Environment and Water could review the need for improvements to the hunting permit system, including a bow hunting training program with evidence of passing the training being provided prior to a hunting permit being issued; a process for bow hunters to be tested in order to assess their knowledge, skill level and proficiency in hunting and in the use of their chosen weapon; a requirement that bow hunters should be a member of an approved hunting club or association prior to the permit being issued; and that as a requirement of receiving a permit bow hunters must declare that they are familiar with and will adhere to the code of practice for hunting with bows and crossbows. The issue of bow hunting being inhumane as a way of dispatching an animal was raised as an ongoing concern by animal welfare organisations and individuals concerned for animals. The debate over whether this is accurate appears to the committee to be unresolved at this time. The calibre of evidence submitted to the committee by animal welfare organisations and individuals was high, but this evidence was also contested by those who practise bow hunting. Other recommendations include that the authorities, under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, are enabled to undertake more rigorous policing of sites of hunting and that the Minister for Environment and Water review penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 for harm to animals and legislate penalties relevant to hunting activities. The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by animal welfare organisations. They are legitimate concerns and there are circumstances that require a stronger approach, as discussed in the report. However, the committee considers the recommendations made in the report, including controls over the sale of inferior equipment and greater education, training and skills testing for bow hunters, will contribute to improved outcomes for animals in the longer term without impacting on target archers or being legislatively burdensome for legitimate bow hunters. I commend the committee's report to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.