Animal Welfare Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 November 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:23): I rise to speak on the Animal Welfare Bill 2024 as the lead speaker for the opposition. As shadow minister for primary industries, I am committed to ensuring that animal welfare remains a key priority, particularly from a primary production perspective.

Our farmers and livestock producers take great pride in upholding high standards of animal care, recognising that good welfare practices are not only an ethical obligation but also fundamental to sustainable and productive agriculture. Therefore, the opposition's focus will always be on supporting policies that balance strong animal welfare outcomes with practical science-based approaches that acknowledge the realities of modern farming. We will unashamedly advocate for fair, transparent legislation and regulations that provide certainty for producers, whilst maintaining public confidence in our food and fibre industries.

By working closely with industry leaders, producers and the broader community, governments can and should ensure that animal welfare remains a priority without undermining the viability of our essential primary industries. We recognise that the state government has committed to reviewing the current act to ensure these laws align with modern practices and community expectations. Australian farmers highly value the trust placed in them by the public and understand that maintaining community confidence in their animal care practices is essential to the success of the agriculture industry.

Good animal welfare goes hand in hand with good farming, as high-quality agricultural products depend on healthy animals and excellent standards of care. Farmers are dedicated advocates for strong animal health and welfare outcomes. It is widely understood that the general public expects food production systems to adhere to national endorsed codes of practice, which are based on best practices, supported by scientific evidence and explicitly prohibit animal cruelty. These cover all manner of sectors, such as animals at saleyards or slaughter establishments, intensive husbandry of rabbits and the farming of ostriches to more common pigs and goats.

To drill down into an example, the code of practice for livestock at slaughter establishments addresses unloading, pre-slaughter handling and the slaughter process, emphasising the efficient and humane treatment of animals to minimise stress. Additionally, it includes guidelines for the emergency slaughter of sick, crippled or downer animals, as well as techniques for their humane destruction. It is thoroughly comprehensive, as are all the established codes of practice.

I raise that I will have amendments to this bill regarding legislating the use of virtual fencing for livestock animals in South Australia, something industry has been telling me and the opposition they wish to see form an explicit part of this Animal Welfare Bill. As we are all aware, state and territory animal welfare legislation determines where and what type of electronic devices can or cannot be used to contain livestock. Currently, these collars cannot be used commercially in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales or the ACT. However, exemption permits can be obtained for research purposes.

In contrast, in Western Australia the Animal Welfare General Regulations 2003 were changed in June 2022 and now permit the use of a brand of virtual fencing technology in cattle, as long as the device is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. A virtual fencing of livestock is also permitted in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland, and it is about time that we move in line with these states to make virtual fencing commercially available in South Australia. The livestock industry has been calling on the government to allow for the commercial use of virtual fencing for a number of years. In fact, in their submission to the government on this Animal Welfare Bill, Livestock SA said:

Livestock SA has repeatedly requested that the restrictions on the use of virtual fencing collars in livestock be permitted beyond the research sector and allowed for use on commercial livestock properties. We note that the definition of an electrical device remains unchanged in the bill. As such, we again request government expedite amendments to the Animal Welfare Regulations 2012, specifically amending section 8(1)(a), to enable virtual fencing to be used for livestock management purposes.

It should be noted that during debate in the committee stage, when questions were asked of Minister Close by several members of the Liberal Party, the minister failed to affirm a commitment to virtual fencing, stating, 'Should virtual fencing be permitted, it will be done through regulations and this section does not change that.' Questions to the Minister for Primary Industries regarding the enabling of virtual fencing have also been asked during question time, and equally the minister fails to commit to industry. In the PPSA submission to the Animal Welfare Act, they stated:

Livestock and dairy commodity groups are strong advocates for the future application of virtual fencing technology in commercial farming systems and seek regulatory approval for use beyond the research sector in South Australia. Virtual fencing has been shown through peer reviewed research, to be effective at managing livestock movements is a low stress, reduced handling way, with benefits to the environmental management and reduction in labour requirements. Of particular concern to our industry sectors is how 'virtual fencing' is handled under Regulations.

They are concerned, and so are we. We are concerned that this Labor government will not progress with the use of virtual fencing through regulations, not because of any reason that has facts and science behind it but because of their ideology. I have a memo from the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association, which they have asked to be read verbatim in the chamber:

The South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association has long advocated for the authorisation of virtual fencing. As representatives of the South Australian dairy industry, SADA is committed to a productive and sustainable future both on farm and through the supply chain. As an industry that relies on the highest standards of animal husbandry to ensure good productivity, we seek to ensure that animals in our care are treated optimally to make certain of ongoing productive outcomes.

In light of recent developments, including research conducted in South Australia under the direction of Minister Scriven, for which the industry is appreciative, we believe it is now important that virtual fencing be allowed within our State. Other states have come to permit the use of this technology as it amounts to an appropriate animal management tool that offers a number of advantages that current tools do not. Particularly, the use of this technology enables farmers to not only manage pastures more effectively, but also enables farmers to manage land in such a fashion that would allow protection sensitive areas and ecosystems on their properties.

It is important that changes are now made without delay to enable the use of virtual fencing technologies in South Australia. Delays will continue to generate uncertainty, create delays in business decision making which directly impact on industry, delaying investment decisions by farmers and placing South Australian farmers at a disadvantage to other states.

We have seen years of peer-reviewed research which shows virtual fencing is low stress and effective for managing stock movements. Other states have been using this technology for years, making South Australia anticompetitive as a place to do business in the ag sector, and it is about time that is changed.

Given the failure of both Minister Close and Minister Scriven, and indeed the government, to commit to enabling the use of virtual fencing through regulations, given the failure of any public commitment to do this, it is proposed that the legislation be amended to include a provision enabling its use.

If the Attorney in his role as minister in charge of the bill in this chamber would like to firmly commit to the chamber that the Animal Welfare Act 2024 regulations will allow the use of virtual fencing commercially in South Australia, then I am more than happy to consider withdrawing my amendment. The Attorney has that choice, and I firmly counsel him to take up my offer to make a public commitment in this place which will enable the use of virtual fencing through the associated drafted regulations.

The industry fears that if we wait for regulations under the new act it will be well into next year before anything gets done. I also fear that the minister will hold out on any regulations at all and simply wait for the national animal welfare committee to come up with an agreed national standard. They have been at it for a couple of years now, and there is no guarantee that they will reach a position this year, or even next, or even the next year after that. It is taking too long, and any further delay is a disadvantage to South Australian producers.

The excuse from government in the chamber may be that there is a national standard which is coming, but waiting is not good enough. We need to level the playing field and ensure that virtual fencing technology is available into the future.

I note that there are amendments to this bill—several—which have been filed by the Attorney-General, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Tammy Franks. I can inform the chamber, and it probably will not be a big surprise, that we will not be supporting the amendments from the Hon. Tammy Franks, member for the Greens.

In regard to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, whilst we appreciate the intention behind this amendment, we believe it does not fully address the necessary requirements and, as a result, we are unable to support it because we believe the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment better encapsulates the broader issues and, as such, I indicate that we will be supporting his amendment. In regard to the government's set of amendments, I do have some questions around some of those amendments, and we will assess those amendments on their merits during the committee stage.

Before I wrap up, I do want to raise an important issue in regard to the RSPCA as inspectors or authorised officers under this new bill and the role that they play in investigating animal cruelty. There is a growing concern amongst industry regarding the policy direction of the RSPCA extending into production animal welfare. There is no doubt that animal cruelty is abhorrent, and reducing animal cruelty is a fundamental responsibility that transcends personal beliefs about livestock production methods. It is essential for ethical and also a number of practical reasons.

Humane treatment minimises unnecessary suffering, improves animal welfare and leads to better meat quality in the final product. Proper handling also creates safer working conditions for employees and supports industry best practice. Regardless of the production method, minimising harm is a fundamental responsibility in livestock management. However, what I hear constantly from industry as a growing concern is a slide, not for the advancement of best practice but for a call for a reduction or even the end of practice for animal production.

There is an inherent conflict in the RSPCA's dual role of fundraising for campaigns aimed at changing the legal framework governing production animals while simultaneously seeking public and community funds for animal welfare inspection services. To demonstrate impact, the RSPCA has a strong incentive to focus on animal husbandry practices or industries that are the subject of public activist campaigns, such as the push to ban live sheep exports.

I emphasise that the public and highly visible nature of the support of such campaigns has the potential to negatively affect the livelihoods of livestock producers who are fully compliant with Australian laws and animal welfare standards. Such campaigns can also erode public trust in farming and cause undue harm to an industry's reputation. It is firmly my opinion that as governments we have a responsibility to ensure this potential conflict of interest does not undermine livestock producers' confidence in operating within the legislated animal welfare framework.

I fully acknowledge the legitimate role of organisations like the RSPCA in advocating for and lobbying governments to enact legislative change that aligns with the interest of their members in advancing animal welfare. Advocacy is an important part of the democratic process, and groups have every right to push for reforms they believe in; however, my concern, and the concern of many within the livestock industry, lies with the RSPCA's dual status as both an advocacy group and a regulator.

This dual role creates a conflict of interest, as the same organisation that actively campaigns for changes in legislation is also responsible for enforcing existing animal welfare laws. This raises questions about impartiality, transparency, and the fairness of regulatory oversight, particularly for primary producers who rely on clear, consistent and unbiased enforcement. Regulatory responsibility should be carried out independently to ensure confidence in the system and fair treatment for all stakeholders.

Additionally, as a registered charity, the RSPCA receives significant public funding. Notably, the 2024-25 South Australian budget allocated $16.4 million over four years in additional support for compliance activities, welfare assessments, and enforcement of animal welfare provisions. This funding suggests that inspection activities targeting both domestic animals and commercial livestock in South Australia are likely to increase in the coming years, regardless of any proposed legislative reforms.

I think it is important to note and place on the record that, to improve animal husbandry and to develop best practice for production animals, the government needs to work in partnership with industry, because the responsible stewardship of animal welfare must be guided by practical evidence-based policy that upholds high standards whilst ensuring the viability of our primary industries. The livestock sector plays a vital role in our economy and communities, and its commitment to best practices should be supported and not undermined by ideological agendas or regulatory uncertainty.

The government must work collaboratively with industry to achieve balanced and effective animal welfare outcomes, ones that enhance public confidence without placing unnecessary burdens on farmers. The opposition will continue to stand with our producers, advocating for fair and transparent regulations that enable innovation, maintain competitiveness and reinforce the proud tradition of ethical and sustainable livestock production in South Australia.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:40): I rise to speak about this bill and, while I support much of the intent of the bill, I fear it is also a Trojan Horse for some of the minister's pet topics, if you pardon the pun, namely, a back door in seeking to ban the practice of duck, quail and other types of game hunting. Even though this has not been specified in the bill, there is concern that it may take that in. I note that there have been amendments from the crossbench to carve those elements out of it, and I hope that they get the support of the chamber.

I also say this because the minister's department has recently announced huge increases in permit costs, certainly much more than apply in other states. I think this is further evidence of how this government also extracts taxes and levies that, in comparison to larger states, are far too excessive. I will move amendments, which I hope will be supported, in the spirit of the select committee findings and recommendations into duck and quail hunting.

That was a very exhaustive committee and we took evidence from all around the state. It was quite clear from the evidence that was gained from that inquiry that there is a lot of support for the recreational activity of duck, quail and other types of hunting, which so far have shown to have been well observed by those involved in it. From what I was told by recreational and other hunters, the last duck season went really without much incident, and there were few areas of complaint in regard to that. Nonetheless, there still remains opposition from some sides of the fence, including from the minister and the Hon. Tammy Franks of course.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Hon. Tammy Franks actually has a pile of amendments here, some of which I will support and others I will not. The opposition also has amendments, as does the Attorney-General. I certainly support the views that were expressed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti in her observations about the RSPCA.

From when they were appointed as regulators by previous governments, I really had serious concerns about that. I did not think they were the appropriate organisation to be acting as the police, so to speak, of animal welfare, even though we know they do have that strong interest and you welcome their interest in that area and what they have done, but in this area I do not think they were the appropriate body to be the regulators.

I think that has been confirmed through some campaigns they have been running in recent years that indicate that this organisation has been hijacked by activists, which in turn, as the Hon. Nicola Centofanti has pointed out, are starting to threaten the livelihoods of farmers and livestock producers. It also indicates that there could be perceived conflicts of interest, but I am not going to attack the RSPCA because generally they have done fantastic work over the years and they should be encouraged to continue with their advocacy for animal welfare as they have done for such a long time—not just in this state but elsewhere and also overseas.

However, as I have indicated, there are elements that have infiltrated the RSPCA and are beginning to influence what they do and some of the attitudes they have to animal husbandry and other things. It remains to be seen what will happen to that but, generally, I agree with what the Hon. Nicola Centofanti had to say in relation to that. In saying that, I will conclude my remarks and look forward to the debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:46): I rise today as the Greens' animal welfare portfolio holder to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Animal Welfare Bill 2024 that is currently before us today. I flag also that the Greens will be introducing a series of amendments to make it an even better bill than it currently is, and we look forward to discussing and debating them in this place.

This bill before us is required to update and modernise the 40-year-old Animal Welfare Act 1985, to make it consistent with contemporary best practice, modern scientific understanding and the community's expectations for our animal welfare laws. I note the bill is the culmination of a process that began with a commitment by the government in opposition—an election campaign promise—and I am pleased that they have carried through with it all the way to fruition. It is obvious that the processes the government has undertaken here have validated those reforms.

The two separate rounds of public consultation received, in fact, more than 1,000 submissions each. This is testament to how strongly the public support strong animal welfare laws and how highly they rate animal protections, whether it be for our beloved domestic companions—whether furred or feathered or finned—our precious, unique and sadly sometimes threatened and endangered native wildlife, or the livestock across many of our rural communities that provide food, fibres or other products, and many hundreds if not thousands of jobs across our state in communities large and small.

The common denominator across all of these is overwhelmingly a love of and respect for animals large and small. It is pleasing to see such a consensus emerge for the need to take action to reform the old, outdated act. The bill before us addresses seven reform areas, and I note the government's stated intention to later address an eighth area of reform: shelter licensing. I look forward to that debate.

The Greens look forward also to the opportunity to participate constructively in that process in due course, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. However, the seven areas that this bill addresses are:

updating the bill's purpose and including principles and objects in the act to rationalise its existence and guide its interpretation;

improved recognition of animal sentience, acknowledging animals experience both positive and negative feelings, such as pleasure and pain;

expanding the definition of 'animal' to include fish, consistent with other states, and cephalopods (such as squid, octopus and cuttlefish), but only, unfortunately, in the context of scientific purposes for the latter group, which I shall discuss further later on;

establishing a duty of care provision with a positive obligation to provide a minimum level of protection;

improving the regulation, oversight and transparency of the research and teaching sector to facilitate increased accountability and reflect community concerns;

increasing capacity to manage and enforce the act so people who do contravene animal welfare standards can be held to account, cruelty can be deterred and animal welfare improved; and

modernising the governance and administration of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to provide animal welfare advice from an appropriately qualified and diverse group.

While there are some shortcomings, passage of this bill will significantly strengthen the current act and improve animal welfare for domestic animals, native wildlife and livestock. More animals will be protected and better outcomes will be delivered, with two new mechanisms to enhance compliance and enforcement, namely, notices to comply and enforceable undertakings.

Penalties have been substantially increased for both individuals and corporations and moneys raised from licence fees, fines and penalties will be hypothecated into a new fund dedicated to improving animal welfare. This is a welcome reform. A new provision will enable additional activities and/or items to be prohibited through regulation, and that is also welcomed by the Greens and I look forward to constructive conversations with the minister about the sorts of things that might be included in those processes.

Seizing animals at risk will become easier and the process more animal focused, with the care and welfare of the animal the central consideration, noting that it will not deny natural justice to owners who can still apply to the minister not to have their animals forfeited if they are contesting the matter.

The bill will increase protections to animals by preventing interstate offenders escaping the oversight of their jurisdiction by recognising any animal welfare orders that they may have been subjected to. It will also introduce mandatory reporting requirements for people involved in the greyhound racing industry to report suspected breaches to the minister, as recommended by the independent Ashton inquiry into the governance of the greyhound racing industry—again, another welcome reform.

There really is no excuse for animal abuse. It is essential we ensure that cruel acts and practices against animals are treated as serious crimes, whether committed by private individuals or corporate offenders who, if found guilty, should be exposed to the full extent of the law and the highest penalties that this legislation now provides for.

I give credit to the government and the minister. I give credit where it is due, and it is due there. The penalty provisions are amongst the nation's best and I hope they do act as a deterrent to reduce cruelty and neglect and lead to improved welfare outcomes for all animals, whether in our homes, in the wild or on farms. To guarantee that, it is imperative that the Animal Welfare Act is monitored and enforced by well-resourced and expert inspectorates.

I am pleased to acknowledge the creation of the Animal Welfare Fund, which will see moneys raised from licence fees, fines and penalties hypothecated into a fund to improve animal welfare. I trust the government will match its rhetoric for animal welfare with increased funding and guarantee that the enforcement and rescue, rehoming and shelter organisations will be adequately, indeed amply, resourced to fulfil their expanded roles.

The incongruence of outsourcing the role of law enforcement of animal welfare matters to a private charitable organisation, albeit one that is dedicated, experienced and knowledgeable, yet dependent on public fundraising to ensure it can balance its books and fund its activities, has always been a concern for the Greens.

I do have some amendments and I will be introducing a number of them, as previously mentioned by other speakers. They were drafted in consultation with numerous stakeholders and which, if they were passed, would further strengthen this bill and would be truly nation leading and indeed would see South Australia become a lead in the world in this sort of legislation.

Our amendments reflect feedback that has been received from stakeholders, including the RSPCA South Australia, the Australian Alliance for Animals, an umbrella organisation incorporating Animals Australia, Compassion in World Farming, Voiceless, Humane World for Animals that was formerly known as the Humane Society International, Four Paws and World Animal Protection. They were also informed by the Law Society of South Australia's Animal Law Committee's submission to the consultation for the draft bill in May 2024.

I thank all those organisations, and so many more, for their input, advice and advocacy towards delivering the best possible outcomes for the animals who have no voice in this place and have no voice in the community and yet who give us their love, devotion, companionship and often their very lives for us.

The amendments that the Greens have put forward for this bill are in line with the Greens' policies, all stemming from our four pillars of ecological sustainability, social justice, peace and nonviolence, and participatory democracy. They will improve animal welfare outcomes, enhance scrutiny and oversight through better transparency and enable the industry to be held more closely to account regarding animal welfare and integrity standards.

The Greens strongly believe and know that animals are sentient beings capable of feeling and suffering. Their intrinsic worth is separate from the needs of humans. Their welfare must be respected with regard to both the survival of the species as a whole and the protection of individual animals. Humans do, in fact, have a responsibility to minimise any suffering of animals caused by our human activities and to maximise their quality of life. We do acknowledge that animal welfare should be considered in terms of the five freedoms that animal welfare experts now acknowledge as best practice, namely, freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress.

The Greens welcome the opportunity to raise a number of amendments and I will go into detail as I move each of those in the debate. With that, I would like to thank the minister in particular for undertaking a very thorough and extensive consultation process; certainly, the documents and the briefings provided to me and my office have been of high quality. I would also like to particularly thank Emily Gore from the minister's office, as well as the minister's department for their facilitation of quite constructive conversations. With that, we welcome the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:56): I rise today to speak about the Animal Welfare Bill 2024. This bill will replace the Animal Welfare Act 1995 and seeks to modernise South Australia's animal welfare laws to ensure that they are consistent with contemporary practices, science and community expectations.

The bill aims to provide a new framework to put animal welfare at the centre of decision-making and clearly recognises animals as living beings that experience positive and negative states. The definition of 'animal' has been expanded to include fish and cephalopods in certain contexts and the bill introduces a positive duty of care which requires owners to provide adequate food, water and living conditions. The bill seeks to increase accountability within the research and teaching sectors by improving regulation and oversight.

Notably, the government has adopted a range of new compliance and enforcement tools to provide greater flexibility to deal with cases of cruelty that may not have otherwise been able to be prosecuted. From the information provided to me in briefings, this seems to be a very sensible approach that will allow for greater nuance and provides a range of practical measures to help prevent cruelty and address contraventions of the act without always having to resort to prosecution.

Some of the other key changes in the bill include a provision for animals that have been seized to be considered forfeited after 30 days unless the owner uses the appeal processes provided under the bill. This proposition would prevent seized animals from being held for long periods of time while awaiting court outcomes and will result in better outcomes for the ongoing welfare of those animals. The bill also introduces an obligation for employees, contractors and volunteers in the greyhound racing industry to report any suspicion of animal welfare offences being committed in the sector. I understand that this was a recommendation from the independent inquiry into the governance of greyhound racing that has been adopted by the government.

The establishment of a new Animal Welfare Fund is another significant addition to this bill, which will capture licence fees, fines and penalties to be reinvested into supporting and promoting animal welfare outcomes. I understand that this section of the bill will require significant regulation and that the fund is intended to be used towards the promotion of research into animal welfare, including wildlife, and education programs relating to the protection of animal welfare and prevention of harm.

I would particularly like to make mention of the change to the definition of 'animal', which now includes fish. I know that questions were raised in the other place and also in this place about the impact this may have on recreational and commercial fishing practices. It is somewhat comforting for many to know that the minister has given strong assurances that fishing and aquaculture practices will not be impacted.

Likewise, the minister has assured members in the other place that this bill will not affect other industries, such as the dairy industry and other animal husbandry industries, as their codes of practice will remain attached to the new act as a regulation that gives an exemption to the general provision. However, it is important that these considerations are addressed explicitly by the minister because many industries and communities are heavily invested in and potentially impacted by animal welfare legislation, from livestock producers to breeders, hunters and fishers.

While the ministers have made assurances that practices such as duck hunting will not be regarded as an act of cruelty in this legislation, many organisations have raised concerns and prompted me to examine this further. Therefore, I wish to indicate that I will be considering supporting the amendments proposed by members to give ironclad certainty that this bill will not prohibit duck hunting or recreational game hunting activity.

I note that there was substantial debate and questioning in the other place around the issue of virtual fencing and understand that there has been very strong representation made by Livestock SA and other stakeholders for the bill to allow for virtual fencing to be used in South Australia. Therefore, I wish to indicate that I will be supporting the opposition's amendments in relation to the use of virtual fencing systems in line with industry submissions.

In regard to the number of amendments proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks, I would like to take some time to consider those amendments during the debate and the committee stage. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.