Animal Welfare Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 February 2025.)

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:08): I rise to comment on the government's Animal Welfare Bill 2024, which is designed to increase legal protection for all species of animals and reflects current community expectations regarding the need to uphold an appropriate standard of treatment for all animals and to impose consequences for those who breach these standards. Owners must provide animals with appropriate food, water and living conditions, and must take measures to prevent or minimise harm. Breaching these requirements is an offence, which is both appropriate and in accordance with the basic standards of care.

It will also be an aggravated offence to intentionally or recklessly cause harm or death of an animal, with increased fines and terms of imprisonment. Cruelty towards animals is an offensive act that warrants substantial penalties to not only punish the offender but send a message to the community that such behaviour will not be tolerated in a civilised society.

While the bill updates the definition of 'animal' to include fish, its purpose is to address the cruel practices of harvesting shark fins and stingray tails, and exempt aquaculture and fishing activities from constituting an offence. These are sensible, balanced measures, and I thank the minister for acting to protect our animals.

I would also like to express my support for the honourable member Nicola Centofanti's amendment to clause 11 of the bill, which excludes regulations being made that prohibit the installation of virtual fencing systems. This amendment is appropriate as it protects farmers and others living on rural properties from being captured under the new offences.

We must do all we can to protect our animals, but we must also ensure that through this desire to protect we do not infringe on the humane and ethical activities conducted by those who need to impose restrictions on animals in the course of operating their livelihood. I note that I will also be supporting the amendments by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (11:10): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Bill 2024. The Malinauskas Labor government made an election commitment to reform the Animal Welfare Act, to modernise and bring it in line with both scientific advancements and community expectations. Considering the previous act dates back to 1985, this update is long overdue. I welcome the changes included in this bill. They are sensible and, more importantly, they are humane. I will speak briefly today about some of the changes.

The new bill better acknowledges the fact that animals experience feelings, both positive, such as joy, and negative, such as fear. It does so through new provisions such as duty of care. The new duty of care provisions proactively require owners to provide appropriate food, water and living conditions in line with contemporary standards. This will allow authorities to address neglect of an animal before it is actively harmed and is entirely in line with the way our community thinks and feels about animal welfare.

The bill also provides increased abilities to administer and enforce the act, so that people who do not meet animal welfare requirements can be held to account, cruelty can be prevented and welfare can be promoted. This bill includes a number of updates to assist the RSPCA in managing the animal welfare inspectorate. The range of tools available in this legislation include interim orders, notices to comply and enforceable undertakings.

The 2024-25 state budget also provided an extra $16.4 million over four years to RSPCA SA to deliver animal welfare compliance activities. This is in addition to the $1 million provided to the organisation over four years by the Malinauskas government upon its election. The bill also strengthens penalties for mistreatment. It includes fines of up to $250,000 or 10 years in jail for people who mistreat animals. The new penalties will be a significant increase on the current maximum fine of $50,000 or four years in jail for the aggravated ill-treatment of an animal.

The bill also proactively prevents harm by addressing interstate offenders coming into South Australia through the recognition of interstate animal welfare orders. The bill broadens the definition of an animal to include fish. This is consistent not only with the scientific evidence demonstrating that fish are sentient but brings South Australia into line with the rest of the nation. Fishing and aquaculture will not be affected. Fishing practices will still be carried out in compliance with the relevant legislation, namely, the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Aquaculture Act 2001.

The bill also improves regulation, oversight and transparency of the research and teaching sector, which enables greater accountability and addresses community concerns. The Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, which researchers must abide by, also covers the use of cuttlefish, squid and octopus.

The bill also modernises the governance and administrative provisions for the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, to ensure that animal welfare advice is coming from a transparent and diverse group. This is just a brief overview of the changes included in this bill. How we care for animals reflects who we are as a society. It is absolutely essential that animals are given adequate legislative protection that is modern and reflective of our society's expectations, standards and beliefs. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:14): I rise to speak in favour of the Animal Welfare Bill 2024. The Malinauskas Labor government made an election commitment to update the Animal Welfare Act to modernise animal welfare laws so they are consistent with contemporary practices, science and community expectations. Very often a society is judged on how we treat the most vulnerable in our society, and this would also include animals.

The bill does a number of key things. It updates the purpose and includes objects in the act to better explain why the law exists and to help readers interpret its intent. It better acknowledges that animals experience feelings both positive, such as pleasure, and negative, such as pain and fear. It broadens the definition of 'animals' so that more types of animals are covered by the law. The exclusion of fish has been removed and cephalopods, such as squid, octopus and cuttlefish, are included in the context for scientific purposes.

The bill introduces a duty of care provision to create a positive requirement to provide a minimum level of protection. It improves regulation, oversight and transparency of the research and teaching sector, which enables greater accountability and addresses community concerns. It increases the ability to administer and enforce the act so that people who do not meet animal welfare requirements can be held to account, cruelty can be prevented and welfare can be promoted. The bill contemporises the governance and administration provisions for the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure that animal welfare advice comes from a transparent and diverse group.

Regarding the inspectorate and penalties for abuse, the bill includes a number of updates to assist the RSPCA in managing the animal welfare inspectorate. The range of tools available in this legislation will make its enforcement much more effective, swift and animal focused. Tools, such as interim orders, notice to comply and enforceable undertakings, are modern ways to achieve outcomes that are tailored to their circumstances.

The 2024-25 budget also provided for an extra $16.4 million over four years to RSPCA SA to deliver animal welfare compliance activities. This is in addition to the $1 million provided to the organisation over four years by the Malinauskas government upon its election. The bill includes fines of up to $250,000 or 10 years' jail for people who mistreat animals and follows extensive community consultation that showed widespread support for the changes. The new penalties will be a significant increase on the current maximum fine of $50,000 or four years in jail for the aggravated ill treatment of animals. The bill also proactively prevents harm by addressing interstate offenders coming into South Australia through the recognition of interstate animal welfare orders.

The new duty of care provision proactively obliges owners to provide appropriate food, water and living conditions. Eight out of 10 respondents supported this provision during the consultation process. This provision allows authorities to address neglect before an animal is harmed. This means RSPCA SA can talk to owners about better looking after their animals without having to wait for the animal to be harmed and without having to lay cruelty charges.

The inclusion of fish within the definition of animal brings South Australia into line with the rest of the nation. Fishing and aquaculture will not be affected. Fishing practices will still be carried out in compliance with the relevant legislation, namely the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Aquaculture Act 2001. The 'Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes', which researchers must abide by, covers the use of cuttlefish, squid and octopus. I support the legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:18): I rise very briefly to speak on the bill, and I will keep my remarks brief. Overall, I support the bill, but my main focus in terms of the discussions that I had with government was particularly around an issue that has been canvassed now a few times in this place, namely clause 14—Exemption of fishing activities. This effectively means that recreational, traditional or commercial fishing activities will be exempt from the provisions of this bill to the extent also that they are covered by other relevant pieces of legislation, including agriculture and fisheries management acts.

That was a very welcome move on the part of stakeholders, who did have some concerns initially when they saw this piece of legislation about the potential impact it would have on that recreational, traditional or commercial fishing activities space. So that is certainly a welcome addition to this legislation.

As other members have noted, the bill does capture the three species that have been identified, all of which were referred to as cephalopoda—which, for those who do not know, means 'head and feet' in Greek. It refers to those organisms whose tentacles (rather than feet) are actually attached to their head. Of course, that is limited to scientific purposes only.

I do note that in those briefings I was trying to establish, on behalf of those stakeholders, which activities would actually be caught in the provisions of the act, and I will give a couple of examples which I think are worthy of keeping in mind. A proposal for a nightclub with a tank that would feature a shark could be captured under this legislation, and there has been such a proposal in South Australia. From memory, I think the proposal for a shark was subsequently replaced with a proposal for a live 'mermaid'. I do not know which piece of legislation that ought to have fallen under, but I certainly think it should have been captured somewhere.

There was also a very famous case in Japan of a claw machine that was used to catch lobsters. People put money in the claw machine and they could try to catch a live lobster. Those sorts of activities are the sorts of activities that I think all of us would agree are very ethically questionable, and that could fall within the remit of this piece of legislation.

From a stakeholder perspective, the feedback I had is that this was a welcome inclusion and one the sector was comfortable with, certainly for the sectors I consulted with. l do note that there is no mention of crustaceans in there, and I have asked those questions at briefings as well. It was canvassed in the consultation that took place, and I think it would likely form the basis of a much broader debate, given the mixed views in terms of including crustaceans. This is a good first step, and everyone is satisfied that we have the balance right in terms of exemptions for those fishing activities versus the welfare of animals.

I also note that I did ask those questions of the government in terms of ones that are captured. I am sure there would be some questions asked by our restaurants that serve live seafood—and we have plenty of them in this state. You go in and can pick a fish, you can pick a crayfish, you can pick whatever it is from a tank, a mud crab, and have it cooked then and there for you. One of the logical responses given to me was that it is in the best interests of those outlets to treat that animal as humanely as possible because the quality of the product is ultimately what people are paying that high price for, and the quality of the product is only maintained if it is killed in a humane way.

That is a space I will continue to watch. I have told the government I will continue to watch that space, because it is one worthy of keeping an eye on. It would be captured by existing mechanisms, whereby we are walking in and looking at other practices that restaurants and so forth are partaking in, but I do not know what the government intends to do in terms of awareness amongst those restaurants of those products that they keep being now captured in this legislation. Overall, I am satisfied with those provisions.

The other provisions I will speak to very briefly, which I am surprised to say the government did not make a focal point of during the briefing that I had with them. Something that did not spring to mind immediately until we took a closer look at the bill was the regulation-making powers—those contained specifically in clause 9 of the bill—which relate to prohibited activities. Subclause (1) provides that 'A person must not take part in a prohibited activity.'

Subclause (5) then goes on to describe what a prohibited activity is. It includes things like animal fighting, live baiting, selling or supplying an animal to a person for the purpose of the animal being used for live baiting or animal fights, and keeping or preparing an animal for the purpose of using the animal in an activity for those preceding purposes. The last subclause, 5(f), provides:

(f) any other act or activity of the kind prescribed by the regulations (after consultation undertaken in compliance with section 78(4) to be a prohibited activity.

That is where I have a bit of a sticking point with this legislation, and it may be for different reasons to others in this place. I have certainly spoken in this place—I do not know how many times now—about the fact that we use regulation-making powers to the extent that we do to make new laws. Something like 95 per cent, 97 per cent—I do not know what the record is now—of the laws that we pass in this state are actually done via regulation and other instruments.

They are instruments that this parliament has very little oversight and scrutiny of. Anyone who has served on the Legislative Review Committee—I am looking at you, the Hon. Mr Martin—can speak to that with some authority. It is where we see the bulk of the laws that are made that impact us every single day. So I think it was entirely inappropriate and in fact quite cheeky of the government to not raise that issue with us when we had this briefing, and obviously that then becomes a vehicle for banning duck hunting and other forms of hunting.

Whatever your position is on hunting—and the purpose of my contribution today is not really to take a position either way—we all know this is a very vexed political issue. It is an issue that comes up at every election, it is an issue that lots of people have lots of things to say about. I think there is a little bit of mischief to treat it in this way, rather than to introduce a piece of legislation in here and decide, based on the numbers, whether we will or will not allow hunting or duck hunting. Certainly, there would be an expectation, as there is with greyhound racing, as there is with jumps racing, that that is something that this parliament overall would have a say on.

The only way that we are going to find out about regulations that ban—well, I am sure the duck hunters and other hunters, quail hunters, will find out very quickly. Despite the fact that there is consultation required, it is a very easy mechanism for the minister to use to simply ban something that she and everyone knows in here is absolutely politically vexed and divided.

We do not all share the same views on those practices and, with an election in the wings next year, I am sure lots of voters have a view on whether or not we should ban hunting irrespective of which side of the argument you sit on. So I do not think it follows that we should have a regulation-making power that enables the government of the day—and in this particular instance, this government—to ban an activity that is as politically divisive and vexed as this one. You can, as I said, have your own views about whether you support hunting or not, but that is the political reality of that issue.

On that basis—and I do note that my amendment deals specifically with duck hunting, but there are amendments that deal with hunting overall—I would apply the same logic in terms of hunting. It is a discussion and a debate that we should have in this place, just like we have done with jumps racing and just like we have done with greyhound racing. Effectively, for any government of the day, unless the hunters are out there bringing this to your attention, there is almost zero chance than anyone in this chamber or the other would know when such a regulation is introduced, and that is attributed to the sheer and vast number of regulations that we make each and every year that bypass the normal lawmaking process.

With those words, I do still intend to move my amendment and I do intend to divide on that amendment in terms of getting a clear picture of where we sit. I note that there is another amendment that deals with hunting more broadly and I would like a clear picture of where we sit on those amendments. With those words, overall, I indicate my support for this bill.

In closing, I will say one thing, though, and it is completely unrelated to this issue. I did say to the advisers when I looked at the extent and the work that had gone into this piece of legislation—and I know I will probably be criticised for saying this, but we have all talked a lot about the important role that animals play, their health, their welfare and the importance of that. When I looked at some of the provisions in this bill, my words to the advisers who briefed me were, 'Perhaps someone should pick up this sort of model, with some of the pretty strong provisions in it, and pass it over to their colleagues in other portfolios (namely, child protection) and perhaps look at the importance, quite rightly, that we place on the welfare of animals in this state and take a leaf out of that book when it comes to child protection in this state.'

There is a lot of detail in this piece of legislation and a lot of thought and principle and policy which, if only it were replicated in other areas, would not just serve well for the animals of our state but our most vulnerable children in this state. I leave you with that. I look forward to the committee stage debate and the progress of the amendments that have been flagged to this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:32): The community supports high animal welfare standards. This bill is intending to improve those standards. Farmers support high animal welfare standards. Farmers particularly have an interest because on those rare occasions when bad practices occur, it impacts the perceptions of the entire industry. I have been very pleased with the level of interest from the agricultural sectors in the Animal Welfare Bill and have a lot of confidence that there is broad support for the majority of the bill.

I would like to particularly address one aspect, which is an intended amendment from the Hon. Ms Centofanti which has been lodged, and that is in regard to virtual fencing. I have previously spoken in parliament about my support for virtual fencing that is based on new and existing robust scientific research. There has been a SARDI trial program which commenced in March 2022 and which is now completed, and preliminary findings have not indicated an adverse animal welfare impact from the use of virtual fencing in livestock. Further, evidence through commercial use and previous research programs throughout Australia indicates that virtual fencing may enhance animal welfare outcomes in cattle through improved monitoring and pasture management.

The SARDI trial program allowed for primary producers across the state to use virtual fencing under a research permit, strengthening and supporting the success of early adoption if the technology becomes available for use in South Australia. During the trial program a total of six field trials were undertaken across the state, focusing on assessing the animal welfare impacts of virtual fencing, including specific uses such as commercial exclusion and rotational grazing. These trials built on research completed in other states which also have not highlighted negative welfare impacts on cattle.

SARDI's trial program built upon existing research without replicating it, addressing gaps in understanding welfare impacts under real-world beef, cattle and sheep production conditions. The SARDI trial program has provided stronger evidence that virtual fencing, when applied as per best practice recommendations, is effective and safe for use in adult beef cattle in southern and pastoral beef systems. Further, according to my advice, broadly speaking the benefits of virtual fencing include improved grazing management, increased animal monitoring, reduced labour and environmental protection.

While the SARDI research also identified that commercial virtual fencing products are effective at containing sheep in a range of scenarios, the findings from the trial program indicate the need for further development in the technology before it can be deemed safe for use in sheep commercially. A final report into the research is due over the coming months, which will be provided to the Department for Environment and Water before being published in scientific journals.

The Hon. Ms Centofanti indicated that if the government was able to make a commitment to including the use of virtual fencing in the regulations then she would be willing to withdraw her amendment. I am pleased to say that the government can give that undertaking. Once the new Animal Welfare Bill has passed parliament the government will draft regulations to enable virtual fencing and put them out for public consultation.

It is also of interest that in 2024 the national Animal Welfare Task Group (AWTG) also agreed to develop an Australian animal welfare guide for virtual fencing as the preferred approach for harmonisation. The guide is currently being drafted, following consultation and input from a stakeholder reference group made up of key scientists, industry groups, the RSPCA and veterinary representatives. I think there is benefit in having national consistency; however, if there is undue delay in such guidelines being developed then we would not wish to wait an unduly long time for those. I will speak more to the particular amendment if it is progressed in the committee stage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (11:37): I want to thank all members for their contributions and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have some questions that probably relate more specifically to clause 76(1). I am in your hands.

The CHAIR: How about you put your questions down, and it will give the minister the opportunity to respond when we get to that—some forward notice?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am very happy to. Just by way of background, in 2020 the Marshall Liberal government implemented the Summary Offences (Trespass on Primary Production Premises) Amendment Bill, which obviously passed all stages, and we have some concerns about how the addition of clause 76(1) will impact section 17 of the Summary Offences Act, which is that relating to trespass on primary production premises. Specifically, my question is that, in relation to 76(1), is a person entering a property unlawfully, whether it is trespass or break and enter, to gain information on animal welfare issues, immune to prosecution if a report of alleged contravention is successfully progressed?

Again, in relation to 76(1), is an owner preventing access to their property by another person an act of hindering another person in making a report? Again, in relation to 76(1), if a person commits a crime in gaining access to document an animal welfare issue, are they protected from prosecution regardless of the animal welfare outcome or only if an animal welfare breach is found? If a person has committed a crime to gain access to animal welfare information, whether it is trespass or break and enter, is their information admissible? If someone tries to stop a person from committing the crime of unlawfully trespassing on a primary production premise, is that someone obstructing a report of alleged contraventions?

The CHAIR: So you will answer at the appropriate clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, lines 9 and 10 [clause 3, definition of animal, (b)]—Delete 'if it is being supplied, kept or used for scientific purposes'

What these amendments do—and I will anticipate the other two amendments that I have at this clause—is broaden the definition of 'animals' to include cephalopods (octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) and Decapoda crustaceans—which I must say is a word I had not heard before—(lobsters, prawns and crabs).

As I flagged in my second reading contribution, the Greens do not understand why, with the exception of if they were being experimented on for scientific purposes, we have stopped our expansion of the definition of 'animals' to include fish, which brings us finally into the 21st century as a jurisdiction. I must say that other jurisdictions right around the country have had fish in their animal welfare laws for decades, so we are hardly leading the way here, but it is good to see us coming up to the mark. But we still have exceptions made for those cephalopods and Decapoda crustaceans, so my amendments would remove that exemption.

We love our octopus and cuttlefish and certainly we have a cuttlefish protection zone in this state. We find it quite curious that the animal welfare act of our state does not offer them similar levels of protection. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government opposes the amendment. My advice is that this has been carefully considered. My advice is that the evidence is there to support the inclusion of fish, but it is not clear that the evidence is there for the inclusion of the further things that the honourable member has outlined.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What evidence was used to ascertain the inclusion of fish that was not present for the inclusion of cephalopods and crustaceans?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a specific study to hand but my advice is we do not have the conclusive research to support it at this stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why then was, in the original bill, the inclusion of cephalopods and crustaceans anticipated? Surely, there must be evidence to hand that occurred if it was then dropped from the original consultation process and excised out from the inclusion of fish.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we asked the question and it was through the public consultation that we have landed where we are.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did not the public consultation actually not excise crustaceans and cephalopods, and was it not in fact the cabinet that made this particular position?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The honourable member would not be surprised that I am not going to go into anything that does or does not happen in cabinet.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Please point to the public consultation that advocated for this particular government position, which is actually out of step with the public consultation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will be happy to take that on notice and see what can be provided to the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that I think I might have made my point, I hope. I understand what the numbers will be but I certainly hope that the government will take this particular issue on notice, as they experiment upon these particular creatures, with them included under the Animal Welfare Act, but, under the Animal Welfare Act more broadly, they are still waiting for apparent evidence that they should have been included—evidence that they have not been able to point to with their particular position in this debate and I think will probably be found to be wanting.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is this 1 or 2?

The CHAIR: I am about to put the first amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate it is not my intention, given they will be consequential, to then persist with the argument that is in amendments Nos 2 and 3. While I have been advised I cannot move all three at this point, I would imagine it is a consequential and indicative position if people are not going to entertain this argument. So if the Hon. Ms Bonaros wishes to raise something about the other two amendments, now might be the time to do it.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, I am advised that at this time you can also move amendments Nos 2 and 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is what I asked at the beginning, Chair.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, I know that you are correct and we are wrong.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Oh, good lord.

The CHAIR: I appreciate you indulging us. It has been an interesting morning, and I might not be at my best.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, after line 10 [clause 3, definition of animal]—After paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) a crustacean of the order decapoda; or

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, lines 11 and 12 [clause 3, definition of animal, (c)]—Delete 'or a prescribed animal kept or used in prescribed circumstances'

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just for the purposes of the public record, I know the member and I have a mutual passion for octopus in particular. They are indeed the most intelligent creature on earth. If you are from my background, they are also one of the world's best delicacies, which is terrible. It is a terrible dilemma: they are intelligent and they are very tasty. But, in all seriousness, I understand what the member has articulated but my position is to support the government. The feedback certainly I had was that, given that this was a new measure in South Australia, there was no appetite amongst the sectors that I spoke to to broaden it even further, and that is certainly what these amendments would do, and on that basis I will not be supporting the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, after line 16—After definition of animal ethics committee insert:

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee means the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee established under section 15;

This defines the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Given that promoting animal welfare outcomes are implicit objectives of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the Greens believe that this piece of legislation should reflect that. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee should be an expert animal welfare committee, not a representative committee, so our amendments will go to ensure that not only is industry represented but those who have expertise in animal welfare are actually part of this particular advisory committee, noting that in a further amendment another of the Greens' objectives—for an independent office of animal welfare—as similarly been rejected so far by government.

I note that often what we have here is the fox in charge of the hen house: those who have a vested interest providing advice that is not necessarily purely animal welfare but often industry driven or profit driven. If we are to get real about having a proper Animal Welfare Act, our Animal Welfare Advisory Committee should reflect that and that is what the Greens amendment goes to.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is the government's view that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is already defined in section 15, so this is an unnecessary amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When did the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee meet in the last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it has not met in the last year.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister concerned that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has not met in the last year, given that we are literally debating a very important piece of legislation that reforms the Animal Welfare Act and the minister has a number of animal welfare considerations, including such things as consideration of a duck hunting season and the like? Is it of concern that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has not even met in the last year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there has not been anything specific to take to the committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the government perhaps consider referring the excising of cephalopods and crustations from the act, something the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee might have taken on board to provide that scientific evidence that so far has been able to be produced on that particular issue?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the advisory committee saw the draft instructions quite some time ago and did not make any specific comments about it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, after line 25—After definition of enforceable undertaking insert:

glue trap means a trap that uses glue, adhesive material or any similar viscid substance as the mode of capture to trap an animal;

This is at clause 3 as well and defines glue traps to be added as a prohibited item. Certainly glue traps were unknown to me, but glue traps have strong adhesive and, when the animal passes over the trap, they become stuck. This causes the animals to die slowly and painfully, with suffering typically lasting several days. Non-target species include birds and reptiles, who are often found stuck on these inhumane devices.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government does not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 15—After definition of serious harm insert:

steel-jawed trap means a trap that has jaws that are made of steel, iron or other metal and that are designed to spring together and trap an animal when a leg or other part of the animal's body comes into contact with, or is placed between, the jaws, but does not include a soft-jawed trap (that is, a trap with steel jaws that are offset and padded).

This includes, after the definition of 'serious harm' steel-jawed traps and provides a definition of that and seeks to have them listed as a prohibited item again. This will prohibit the use or possession of steel-jawed traps and snares. Evidence shows that these are inhumane and there are far more humane traps on the market that could be used instead. Certainly, this is an opportunity, I would have thought, for the government to be banning or prohibiting items of cruelty.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government does not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 24 [clause 5(2)]—After the present contents of subclause (2) insert:

Note—

For enforcement of this duty, see section 6.

This refers to a duty of care enforcement to be required.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is the government's view that this is an unnecessary additional amendment, and we will not be supporting it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 34—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) In determining whether the owner of an animal has properly discharged the duty of care owed under section 5(2), the animal's welfare is to be assessed using the Five Domains Model and applying any relevant minimum care standards developed by the Independent Office of Animal Welfare.

(b1) Failure to comply with the duty of care does not, of itself, constitute an offence, but compliance with the duty may be enforced by the issuing of an animal welfare notice, notice to comply or enforceable undertaking (and any such animal welfare notice, notice to comply or enforceable undertaking must specify requirements that are consistent with the Five Domains Model and with any relevant minimum care standards developed by the Independent Office of Animal Welfare).

This I will take to be indicative of the support of the committee of the council for an independent office of animal welfare because it provides for the Five Domains Model of animal welfare to be used as a framework for their duty of care provisions.

While there are a number of amendments that I have here about an independent office of animal welfare within our bureaucracy, which is something that has been long called for by those in the animal sector, I note that the ALP at a federal level have actually taken to election promises to develop an independent office of animal welfare, reflecting in particular in regard to the live export trade the inadequacy of our bureaucracy when it comes to those aforementioned conflicts of interest between industry and animal welfare in the advice and the application and administration of our laws that is provided for governments and ministers of the day.

The Greens think that this is a really good opportunity for the establishment of an independent regulatory body to provide oversight and coordination of animal welfare. In fact, an independent office of animal welfare is essential for this act to properly function. Such a statutory body would be accountable to the minister and covered by the South Australian Ombudsman, and subject to FOI legislation.

While I would hope that such a move would be welcomed in the chamber—I can do the numbers and see that it will not—I understand that it is an incredibly well-supported concept in the community. We cannot have the fox in charge of the henhouse. Departments like PIRSA must not be allowed to go unchallenged when they are industry driven and profits driven at the expense of animal welfare, and live export has been a classic example of that.

We have just heard that the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has not met in the last year, and you have to really wonder whether or not there is a priority within government and the bureaucracy for elevating animal welfare expertise. That is why the Greens will continue to advocate for the voiceless and put this idea on the agenda, and we are really deeply disappointed that the government has not taken this opportunity.

It was a very strong part of the consultation as well. Many submissions were made in support of an independent office of animal welfare. It is quite an extraordinary situation where you have departments that are conflicted in their advice in their internal bureaucracy, and this independent office of animal welfare would go a long way to improving not just our decision-making and the advice to the minister but, in fact, the administration of these really important laws.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting modifying the duty of care and applying a model to assessment, removing the offence and the entwining provision with the independent office of animal welfare. The government's position is the duty of care as drafted is a proactive requirement that has been designed to meet the expectations of the community and articulate the expectations of those who are owners of animals.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Franks–1]—

Page 7, after line 12—After the present contents of subclause (4) insert:

Note—

See section 74 for requirements relating to prescribed codes of practice.

(5) In this section—

Five Domains Model means the Five Domains Model of Animal Welfare developed by Professor David Mellor and Dr Cam Reid (as updated from time to time).

This defines the Five Domains model again, but here with regard to codes of practice. So the arguments remain the same. I understand that the numbers are not with me today in this council, but certainly this bill that we are debating right now was the golden opportunity to take this leadership. I hope future parliaments will consider it more favourably than is being done today.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Franks–1]—

Page 8, after line 10 [clause 7(4)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) terrifies, torments or abuses the animal; or

(cb) treats the animal in a manner that is likely cause harm to, or the death of, the animal; or

(cc) tethers the animal in a manner that causes, or is likely to cause, unnecessary harm or pain to the animal, or tethers the animal for an unreasonable length of time without access to food, water or shelter; or

This expands the definition of ill treatment in line with the RSPCA's advocacy that asked to recognise the Five Domains model and its application with regard to psychological aspects of ill treatment and treatment likely to cause illness or death. Of course, it includes inappropriate tethering and for an inappropriate time. This has been an oversight in the bill so far and has been raised in my consultations with the RSPCA. I would hope that the government would look favourably on it and at least provide some clarification as to whether it intends to act on these issues. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. My advice is that the definition of harm in both the current legislation and the bill already includes distress, and it is my advice that modifying the definition would not provide additional clarity to this matter.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Franks–1]—

Page 11, after line 16 [clause 9(5)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) recreational duck hunting;

(cb) surgical artificial insemination of greyhounds;

(cc) forced swim tests;

(cd) forced inhalation tests;

(ce) causing or permitting the use of a glue trap;

(cf) causing or permitting the use of a steel-jawed trap;

(cg) causing or permitting the use of fruit netting with a mesh size larger than 5 mm by 5 mm at full stretch;

(ch) transporting or racing an animal, or using an animal for entertainment, in temperatures exceeding 35°C (except with the approval, or under the supervision or direction, of a veterinarian);

This amendment adds a list of prohibited activities and seeks to ensure that they are, in the future, prohibited.

I have previously raised the issue of both the steel-jawed traps and the glue traps in this debate, and indicated why I think they are cruel. The surgical artificial insemination of greyhounds has been specifically recommended by the Ashton review to be prohibited in this state, and this would have been a great opportunity for the Malinauskas government to keep its promise to implement each and every one of the recommendations of the Ashton review, which includes prohibiting the surgical artificial insemination of greyhounds.

While there are moves afoot at a national level, we know that in South Australia there have been recordings of those involved in the greyhound racing industry saying that they will fight that particular recommendation and they will not accept it. Those have been provided through the exposure of a parliamentary committee, most specifically the Budget and Finance Committee of this parliament. So we cannot trust the industry to do that for itself. We continue to let that industry marginally regulate itself, and this is a prime opportunity to implement what the Malinauskas government promised would be implemented.

Members of the council may not be aware of why I have added 'causing or permitting the use of fruit netting with a mesh size larger than 5mm x 5mm at full stretch'. That is actually a piece of equipment that is banned in other jurisdictions, and with good reason. Small fruit bats often get caught in netting of that particular size, and other jurisdictions have taken the lead in banning netting of that size. I understand there have been moves here to ensure it is not up for sale, but by putting it in the law we would be taking those good intentions and making them purposeful. You need only spend 20 minutes with any animal rescuer to hear the horror stories of what that particular sized netting does to those animals.

Finally, one would have thought that transporting and racing an animal or using an animal for entertainment in temperatures above 35ºC without specific approvals, that include from a veterinarian, should be a no-brainer. Certainly, the heat policies, for example, of greyhound racing have been applied at their own discretion in the past, and only in the last year, under public pressure, did they stop racing those dogs in extreme heat conditions. As the planet warms those extreme heat conditions will become more and more common, and it is only logical that our laws should keep up with that. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. My advice is that the bill creates a powerful instrument to prohibit an activity through regulations, and that if the bill passes parliament the government intends to draft regulations and put them out for public consultation to get feedback from stakeholders.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that mean that the Malinauskas government has backed away from its promise to prohibit surgical artificial insemination of greyhounds in this state, which it has previously promised to do and which was a well-researched product of the Ashton review?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have information in relation to that particular matter but I will certainly pass it on to the minister responsible.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government has promised that will happen, that prohibition of surgical artificial insemination would happen. Should the minister not be more certain of the answer to that particular question rather than having to take it on notice and check if that is still the Malinauskas government position?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I do not have the information to hand, but I will certainly pass that on to the minister responsible.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 19

Majority 17

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Franks–1]—

Page 11, after line 38—After subclause (7) insert:

(7a) If a person who engages in trialling, training or racing of greyhounds is found in possession of an animal that is reasonably capable of being used for the purpose of live baiting, the person will be presumed to be engaging in live baiting in the absence of proof to the contrary (and the burden of establishing proof to the contrary lies with the person).

This amendment prohibits those involved in the greyhound industry from also concurrently keeping small animals that could be used for live baiting. It is a practice and a prohibition that applies elsewhere in Australia, and it has been introduced for good reason; that is, because we know that live baiting continued to exist in this industry despite decades and decades of denials, only exposed by undercover operations, and undercover operations now made unlawful because in this country we seem to punish those who expose the cruelty rather than those who commit the cruelty.

We know that the co-location of small animals within greyhound racing premises and trainers is something that is indicative that live baiting may be occurring. Surely it is a small price to pay for those who wish to be involved in the greyhound racing industry to assure the public, the community and, indeed, this parliament that live baiting is not occurring as they say. With that, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the amendment. My advice is that we do not support reversing the onus of proof.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 11, after line 38—After subclause (7) insert:

(7a) Regulations made for the purposes of this Act must not prohibit duck hunting.

I have already spoken to the amendment during my second reading contribution. I will not repeat everything I have said; I think we get the general gist of this. I note that there is another amendment which seeks to do, effectively, the same across all forms of hunting. Underlying this amendment is the fact that I would hope—I am really hopeful—that even if these amendments do not pass, they would not be used now or in the future to deal with what I have described previously as something that is, indeed, a very vexed political issue, something that is very divisive amongst community members and something that ought to be the subject of thorough debate in this parliament.

I have also spoken about the fact that we have a mountain of legislation that is now making its way into our law books via regulation-making powers and instruments with very little scrutiny and oversight of this parliament. Certainly, even if it is not the intent of the government to use this regulation-making power to ban something like duck hunting, that might be this government's view, but it opens the door. I do not think that is a good lawmaking practice and it is certainly indicative of the fact that we should be keeping a close eye on the sheer volume of regulations that are being made in this jurisdiction and the impact that they have on communities.

This amendment, as I said, is limited to duck hunting. I note what the honourable Leader of the Opposition has said during her contribution that whilst the opposition supports the intent, perhaps for similar or the same reasons, the preference is to support the amendment which deals with hunting more broadly. I accept that. I will, though, move the amendment regardless in an effort to highlight to the government the importance of dealing with this particular issue—namely duck hunting—through the appropriate mechanisms available to us, ensuring all the scrutiny, transparency and rigour that one would expect when it comes to debating that issue.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 11, after line 38—After subclause (7) insert:

(7a) Regulations made for the purposes of this Act must not prohibit the activity of hunting.

This amendment takes the matter a lot further than my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros has taken it. While she only concentrates on duck hunting, there are also other types of hunting that should be covered in this legislation, namely quail hunting. So that was omitted in the honourable member's amendment, but I am saying it should be extended further.

As I said in my speech last night, I suspect that while there are some very good aspects of this legislation in protecting animal welfare I also am highly suspicious that it is a Trojan Horse for some of the minister's own pet topics that she wants to see eliminated along with what the Greens also want to see eliminated. It is not just duck hunting but probably other forms of hunting—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Greyhound racing. We know that if the Greens have their way—it is their policy nationally—they also want to get rid of horse racing, which would have a—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Absolutely.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, you are on a loser there, the Hon. Robert Simms. Horse racing is important—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Many people are on a loser. You don't like gambling, except if it involves cruelty to animals.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, horse racing employs many people in this state and also in this country, and it would be a travesty if that ever eventuated. Anyway, regardless of that, as I said yesterday there was a comprehensive study undertaken by a select committee into duck hunting and quail hunting. It provided a report to the parliament with a number of recommendations. Among them, of course, was that duck hunting not be banned but that there be some further controls on that activity.

My understanding from groups involved with duck hunting during the recent duck hunting season is that there was a lot of compliance and the members of various associations were very mindful of the requirements and their obligations when carrying out their recreational activity and have also been very observant of what had gone on to ensure that hunters were doing the right thing.

Saying that, I will say that I will oppose the honourable member's amendment, even though it partly covers what I am doing, and I hope other members will support my amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Before we proceed on the amendments, I would like to put a question to the government if I can. My question is whether there has indeed been any discussion or thoughts about using these regulation-making powers to ban hunting or duck hunting more specifically.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the answer to that is no.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on from that then, given this government's position on the issue of hunting now, if it were to be reconsidered in the future is it the government's intention indeed to introduce a special purpose piece of legislation to deal with that issue, or is that something that we do not know?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is not dealt with in this bill at all. The hunting of animals in South Australia is regulated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, and we do not propose to regulate it under this act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Currently the minister has the ability to declare a duck hunting season each year based usually on purportedly environmental conditions and indeed not based on whether or not it is cruel. Does the minister have to come to parliament to debate those declarations of that season each year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, no, it does not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why not? There is an argument here that we should debate the banning of duck hunting season and the minister has the ability, does she or he not, to declare certain species each year not on the menu for duck hunting season. Where is that debate occurring and why is the parliament not having it every year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that there is a process the department runs every year and it provides advice to the minister.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is there a head for power for that declaration-making ability by the minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the power for that exists not under this legislation but under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Further to that, has that legislation—and I am sure this can be answered positively—which allows those declarations to be made, been through the parliamentary process when it was introduced?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there is legislation that has passed it necessarily means it has been through a parliamentary process; however, I will say that an act in 1972 was even before I was born.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What consideration is given to animal cruelty in the current declaration of a duck hunting season each year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I do not have information or advice in relation to that because it is under a different legislative scheme than what we are debating here today.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The select committee that looked into this issue of this particular council made recommendations that cruelty to animals be a consideration of duck hunting season declarations each year. Why have those been ignored? Further, is the minister aware that that committee had two members, one a former minister and one myself, who recommended that duck hunting be banned into the future and that in fact would have been numbers reflective of the majority of this council?

That committee that has now been touted as somehow the bastion of our current democratically decided position on duck hunting, which was a select committee that was stacked out with people who were pro duck hunting and was not necessarily reflective of the numbers in the council as they stand—so, democracy—recommended that cruelty be a consideration in the declaration of duck hunting season declarations, so why is that not here in this bill and why has that recommendation from that committee not been enacted?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for—I am guessing, as the host of Q&A today—that comment rather than a question, mostly. I was not a member of that committee, but, as I have answered in a previous question, the scheme that regulates duck hunting is under a different act than what we are dealing with today.

The Hon. C. Bonaros' amendment negatived.

The committee divided on the Hon. F. Pangallo's amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Franks–1]—

Page 12, after line 1 [clause 9(8)]—Before definition of live baiting insert:

forced inhalation test means a test or activity conducted for scientific purposes in which an animal is forced to inhale smoke by—

(a) the placement of the animal in an instrument of restraint; and

(b) the administration of smoke directly to the animal's nose or head;

forced swim test means a test or activity conducted for scientific purposes in which an animal, other than a fish or other aquatic animal, is placed in water and forced to swim by virtue of being unable to escape or stand, but does not include an activity that has the effect, or likely effect, of protecting or promoting the welfare of the animal on which the research is carried out;

Note—

For example, hydrotherapy does not constitute a forced swim test.

This amendment, at clause 9, inserts a definition of the forced inhalation test, which is also referred to as the forced swim test. The forced inhalation test means a test or activity conducted for scientific purposes in which an animal is forced to inhale smoke by (a) the placement of the animal in an instrument of restraint, and (b) the administration of smoke directly to the animal's nose or head.

A forced swim test means a test or activity conducted for scientific purposes in which an animal, other than a fish or other aquatic animal, is placed in water and forced to swim by virtue of being unable to escape or stand, but does not include an activity that has the effect, or likely effect, of protecting or promoting the welfare of the animal on which the research is carried out. But, for example, hydrotherapy does not constitute a forced swim test. Again, this is another example of animal cruelty that we should be prohibiting in this piece of legislation with this opportunity that we have before us, so I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate, similarly with other amendments of a similar nature with these sorts of specifics, that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Franks–1]—

Page 12, after line 33 [clause 10(2)]—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) a glue trap;

(db) a steel-jawed trap;

(dc) a flank strap;

(dd) a spur with a sharpened or fixed rowel;

(de) a pronged collar;

This amendment, at clause 10, inserts additional lists of prohibited items. These include a glue trap, a steel-jawed trap, a flank strap, but also a spur with a sharpened or fixed rowel, or a pronged collar. They are semi-consequential in that I have previously sought to include the glue trap and steel-jawed trap, but this also goes to those other additional items. I also move:

Amendment No 15 [Franks–1]—

Page 12, after line 41—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) In this section—

pronged collar means a collar, designed for use on animals, that consists of a series of links or segments with prongs, teeth or blunted open ends turned towards the animal's neck so that, when the collar is tightened, it pinches the skin around the animal's neck.

This amendment, at clause 10, defines 'pronged collar', which means a collar designed for use on animals that consists of a series of links or segments with prongs, teeth or blunted open ends turned towards the animal's neck so that when the collar is tightened it pinches the skin around the animal's neck. I commend both amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the government will not support the honourable member's amendments.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Franks–1]—

Page 13, before line 1—After clause 10 insert:

10A—Possession of animals by certain persons prohibited

(1) A person who has been convicted of a serious animal welfare offence must not, without the approval of the Minister, have any animal in their possession or control.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of a body corporate—$250,000;

(b) in the case of an individual—$50,000.

Expiation fee: $1,500.

(2) In this section—

serious animal welfare offence, in relation to a person, means—

(a) any offence against this Part for which the person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment (whether or not that sentence was suspended); or

(b) an offence of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

This prohibits people convicted of serious animal welfare offences from owning animals. I note that it is similar to amendment No. 2 of the government, so I seek some clarity with regard to my progressing this one.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I hope this provides enough clarity: whilst we do not support this amendment, the government has introduced an amendment that requires courts to apply a prohibition for aggravated offences where requested.

New clause negatived.

Clause 11.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Before I move the amendments standing in my name I have some questions of the Attorney on this clause. There is some concern about timing in regard to the drafting of regulations, particularly around the ability of livestock producers to utilise virtual fencing. Can the minister outline the timeline for drafting consultation and tabling of the regulations? We now have the Minister for Primary Industries—we have done a swap.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I indicate that, following discussions with the Minister for Environment in the other place, I can confirm that the intention is for regulations to be drafted this year.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I appreciate the minister clarifying the drafting. Can she also then take me through the timeline in terms of consultation and then, finally, tabling of those regulations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That would be done in the most efficient manner possible, as is usually the case. The intention of the government is the regulations for this act more broadly, but we are particularly talking about virtual fencing, can proceed as expeditiously as possible.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given we do not have a more specific timeline in regard to the drafting of the regulations, I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 13, after line 7—Insert:

(1a) Regulations made for the purposes of this Act must not prohibit a person from placing on any animal or using an electrical device that is part of a virtual fencing system, provided that the device and system are used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Amendment No 2 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 13, after line 16 [clause 11(2)]—Insert:

virtual fencing system means an electrical system used to confine or control animals whereby the fenceline is a non-physical boundary that is enforced by giving the animal a warning cue followed by an electrical shock, administered by a device worn by the animal.

These amendments Nos 1 and 2 are consequential, so with your indulgence I will move both and speak to both together. In so doing, I will make a change in terms of amendment No. 2, to substitute the word 'animals' for 'livestock', so it will read 'virtual fencing system means an electrical system used to confine or control livestock whereby the fenceline is a non-physical boundary that is enforced by giving the livestock a warning cue followed by an electrical shock, administered by a device worn by the livestock'. I note the minister's concern about the use of the term 'animal', and I agree. It was not my intention that it be drafted so broadly, hence I seek to use the word 'livestock'.

As per my second reading speech, this amendment simply legislates the use of virtual fencing for commercial purposes in South Australia for livestock but, importantly, where used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and I think that is a very important addition to this amendment.

I do not particularly propose to reventilate the reasons for this amendment, as I have outlined those thoroughly in my second reading speech, simply to say that we have had seven years of peer review research, which clearly shows that virtual fencing is indeed safe for use in cattle, particularly—obviously—when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. With that, I move my amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am very disappointed that the honourable member has reneged on the commitment she made yesterday, which was that if the government was to make a public commitment in this place which will enable the use of virtual fencing through the associated drafted regulations that she would be open to withdrawing her amendment. The government has made that commitment, and yet this amendment, albeit in a slightly amended form, is proceeding.

The government will not be supporting the amendment. By inserting 'livestock' instead of 'animals' that does overcome the issues that had been raised that, for example, shock collars for dogs could have been captured within the proposed amendment. The honourable member also refers to a body of research in regard to virtual fencing. According to my advice, it is true that that exists for cattle, and I outlined in my second reading speech information in regard to the SARDI trials; however, this amendment would also involve virtual fencing for sheep and indeed other creatures that are considered livestock.

As I mentioned in my second reading speech in regard to sheep, the SARDI research identified that the commercial virtual fencing products are effective at containing sheep in a range of scenarios, but there is a need for further development in the technology before it can be deemed safe for use in sheep commercially. I also have a number of questions that I would like to ask the honourable member. What other animals, what other livestock, would be captured by her proposed amendment in its amended form?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I appreciate the minister's comments; however, I did state in my second reading speech that I would consider withdrawing my amendment. Given the questions that I asked around the timing of the drafting of those regulations, I think there needs to be an appreciation that industry does not want to see a delay in the use of technology. They have had delays in the use of this technology for years now, and South Australian farmers have already been behind other states in not having this technology available. They are concerned, and we as the opposition are concerned, that it could be another 12 months, 18 months, two years, until these regulations are actually tabled and enacted, hence the opposition putting forward this amendment to ensure that it is legislated for.

It is also my understanding that given the devices and systems must be used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, as per my amendment, until a commercial device is available for sheep, or indeed any other livestock, then they would not be able to be utilised, as they would not fall under those manufacturer's instructions, and this is in regard to any species, indeed any breed.

It is also important to note that it is actually in regard to a weight range of those species and breeds. For instance, in terms of cattle, some devices cannot be used for cattle that are under, say, 200 kilograms. The manufacturer's instructions already outline what species, what breed, what kilogram they can be used for and, as per my amendment, it would need to fall under those manufacturer's instructions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the honourable member outline what would prevent the making of homemade devices? Given the broad nature of this proposed amendment, it does not appear to me to preclude that occurring, in which case there would be no manufacturer's instructions and animal welfare would therefore not be taken into account necessarily.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Again, walking through my amendment, we are talking about an electrical device that is used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Certainly, anything that is used outside of that would not fall within this amendment and hence would be subjected to any other provision under this legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that this amendment as drafted, even in the amended form, does not prevent the making of a homemade device, in which case it would not be captured in terms of manufacturer's instructions. I think that really does speak to why it is important to have the provisions that we are talking about enacted through regulation. Regulation enables there to be consultation and to ensure that there are not unintended consequences, which clearly there may be from this amendment.

For example, the definition of livestock includes bees in our state, and under the previous Livestock Act bees were included. I do not think the honourable member intends that there should be such devices used for bees, yet potentially her amendment is drafted in such a way as to open up that possibility.

I would also like to reference another query that has, I think, been mentioned in one of the second reading contributions, and that is in regard to the development of the national guidelines. Again, having consulted with the Minister for Environment in the other place, I can confirm that it is not the intention of the government to wait to proceed with regulations on virtual fencing until after the national guidelines have been developed. I think the concerns around an undue delay are not founded. Consequently, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 10

Noes 11

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

Amendments thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 14 passed.

New clauses 14A to 14I.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Franks–1]—

Page 15, after line 10—After clause 14 insert:

Part 2A—Independent Office of Animal Welfare

14A—Interpretation

In this Part—

Chief Animal Welfare Officer means the person appointed under section 14E;

Office means the Independent Office for Animal Welfare established under section 14C;

State's animal welfare laws means the following:

(a) this Act;

(b) the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995;

(c) the Livestock Act 1997;

(d) any other Act or law relating to the prevention of cruelty to, or the welfare of, animals in the State;

State's animal welfare codes, requirements and standards means codes of conduct, requirements and standards applicable to industries and dealing with matters relating to the prevention of cruelty to, or the welfare of, animals in the State.

14B—Objects

The objects of this Part are—

(a) to promote knowledge of animal welfare issues; and

(b) to improve animal welfare outcomes; and

(c) to ensure the State's animal welfare codes, requirements and standards are independently reviewed and developed having regard to—

(i) contemporary scientific knowledge about animal welfare; and

(ii) advances in technology; and

(iii) community expectations and values; and

(d) to ensure the independent review of the administration and enforcement of the State's animal welfare laws.

14C—Independent Office of Animal Welfare

(1) The Independent Office of Animal Welfare is established as a body corporate.

(2) The Office has the following functions:

(a) reviewing and monitoring, including conducting inquiries, commissioning research and preparing reports on, the following:

(i) the State's animal welfare laws (including compliance with, and the enforcement and effectiveness of, the State's animal welfare laws);

(ii) the State's animal welfare codes, requirements and standards;

(iii) the treatment of animals in a particular industry or sector, including (without limitation) greyhound racing, horse racing, agriculture and medical and scientific research;

(iv) the possible harmonisation of the State's animal welfare laws with similar laws of the Commonwealth, other States and the Territories;

(b) developing minimum care standards for specific classes of animals to assist in determining whether or not an owner's duty of care is being properly discharged in respect of such an animal;

(c) liaising with bodies responsible for national policies and guidelines;

(d) providing advice to Ministers who are responsible for administering the State's animal welfare laws;

(e) such other functions as are conferred by this Act or prescribed by the regulations.

(3) Except as provided under this Act or any other Act, the Office is not subject to Ministerial direction in the performance of its functions.

14D—Staff

(1) The Office will consist of—

(a) the Chief Animal Welfare Officer (who will be the principal officer of the Office); and

(b) persons engaged by the Office on terms and conditions determined by the Office; and

(c) persons employed in the Public Service of the State and assigned to assist the Office.

(2) Persons engaged by the Office are not Public Service employees but are to be taken to be public sector employees, employed by the Office, for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995 and section 74 of the Public Sector Act 2009.

(3) While a Public Service employee is assigned to the Office, directions given to the employee by the Chief Animal Welfare Officer prevail over directions given to the employee by the chief executive of the administrative unit of the Public Service in which the employee is employed to the extent of any inconsistency.

14E—Chief Animal Welfare Officer

(1) The Minister must appoint a person as the Chief Animal Welfare Officer on the recommendation of a majority of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

(2) The Chief Animal Welfare Officer will be appointed for a term not exceeding 3 years and on conditions determined by the Minister and, at the end of a term of appointment, will be eligible for reappointment.

(3) The appointment of the Chief Animal Welfare Officer may be terminated by the Minister on the ground that the Chief Animal Welfare Officer—

(a) has been guilty of misconduct; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment; or

(c) has become bankrupt or has applied to take the benefit of a law for the relief of insolvent debtors; or

(d) has been disqualified from managing corporations under Chapter 2D Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth; or

(e) has, because of mental or physical incapacity, failed to carry out duties of the position satisfactorily; or

(f) is incompetent or has neglected the duties of the position.

(4) The appointment of the Chief Animal Welfare Officer is terminated if the Chief Animal Welfare Officer—

(a) becomes a member, or a candidate for election as a member, of the Parliament of a State or the Commonwealth or a Legislative Assembly of a Territory of the Commonwealth; or

(b) is sentenced to imprisonment for an offence.

(5) The Chief Animal Welfare Officer may resign by written notice to the Minister of not less than 3 months (or such shorter period as is accepted by the Minister).

14F—Appointment of acting Chief Animal Welfare Officer

(1) The Minister may appoint a person to act as the Chief Animal Welfare Officer during any period for which—

(a) no person is for the time being appointed as the Chief Animal Welfare Officer; or

(b) the Chief Animal Welfare Officer is absent from, or unable to discharge, official duties.

(2) The terms and conditions of appointment of the person appointed to act as the Chief Animal Welfare Officer will be determined by the Minister.

14G—Honesty and accountability

The Chief Animal Welfare Officer and any other person appointed to act as the Chief Animal Welfare Officer are senior officials for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

14H—Delegation

(1) Subject to this section, the Office and the Chief Animal Welfare Officer may delegate any of their functions under this or any other Act.

(2) A delegation under this section—

(a) must be in writing; and

(b) may be conditional or unconditional; and

(c) is revocable at will; and

(d) does not prevent the delegator from acting in any matter.

(3) A function delegated under this section may, if the instrument of delegation so provides, be further delegated.

14I—Annual report

(1) The Office must, on or before 30 September in each year, prepare and deliver to the Minister a report on the operations of the Office during the previous financial year.

(2) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This creates an independent office of animal welfare and outlines its objects, function and staff, including a chief animal welfare officer, and its roles and responsibilities, including procedures for their appointment, reporting and delegation powers.

I do so because the previous amendment presupposed this with the duty of care provisions, but this provides that amendment for posterity, for one day when we finally see an independent office for animal welfare in this state. Unfortunately, it will not be today, but I do hope it will be soon.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her amendment—and the commentary from the cheap seats—but the government will not be supporting this amendment.

New clauses negatived.

Clause 15.

The CHAIR: There are amendments in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks and the Attorney-General. We will deal with the Hon. Ms Franks first.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Franks–1]—

Page 15, lines 13 to 15 [clause 15(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister—

(a) must establish an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee; and

(b) may establish such other committees as the Minister thinks fit.

This amendment mandates establishing an animal welfare advisory council and other committees if required. I can see the numbers and I know that I am not going to get very far today but, again, I commend the amendment to the council in the hope that goodwill and a commitment to ending animal cruelty and better advice might prevail.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In speaking to the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment I will also speak to my amendment, for the benefit of the committee. The amendment I will be putting forward is in relation to the fact that the bill creates, for the first time, an animal welfare fund to capture licence fees, fines and penalties so that they can be put back into supporting and promoting animal welfare and outcomes.

Through the amendment I will put forward to clause 15(9), the bill provides that a committee such as the animal advisory committee or a convened panel will provide advice to the minister on the disbursements of any such funds.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be proceeding with my amendments Nos 26 and 27. We are not quite there yet, but I will not be proceeding with those. I move:

Amendment No 19 [Franks–1]—

Page 15, line 22 to page 16, line 2 [clause 15(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee established by the Minister under this Part must consist of 12 members appointed by the Minister, of whom—

(a) 3 members representing non-government animal welfare organisations;

(b) 2 members representing approved charitable organisations;

(c) 2 members who are scientists with expertise in animal welfare;

(d) 1 member representing a consumer rights organisation;

(e) 1 member representing—

(i) commercial breeders, sellers or purchasers of animals; or

(ii) commercial producers or purchasers of animal products;

(f) 1 member representing the Minister;

(g) 1 member representing local councils;

(h) 1 member with expertise in ethics as it relates to animal welfare.

This amends the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to explicitly reflect animal welfare focus with expert animal welfare representation, outweighing industry representation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. I am advised the intention of it is to move to a skills-based rather than a representative committee.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Franks–1]—

Page 16, after line 9—After subclause (7) insert:

(7a) Each member of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must, in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, complete training related to the Five Domains Model (within the meaning of section 6) and the use of non-animal alternatives.

(7b) The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must have accurate minutes kept of its meetings (which must, if a decision of the Committee is not supported unanimously, include details of any dissenting views of a member of the Committee).

This would mandate AWAC members to undergo training in the Five Domains animal welfare model and also mandate that minutes would have to be kept of meetings, including details of any dissenting views of committee members. We have just heard from the government that they are going for a skills base not representative base, so perhaps a little training would not go astray, and certainly keeping minutes and recording decisions of the committee would be much appreciated by those in the community.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the keeping of minutes is something that already occurs. My advice is, in relation to training, that there are a number of models that may be considered in relation to any training that might be undertaken.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Do those minutes include details of any dissenting views by committee members, noting that it has been the experience of committee members put on this who are vastly outweighed when they are representing perhaps the RSPCA and the like—animal welfare voices or AWL and the like—that when they vote their dissent is not appropriately recorded? Will that happen in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that would be captured by the minutes.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, is amendment No. 21 consequential?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, amendment No. 21 and, at this point, amendment No. 22 are consequential, and I can see the numbers.

The CHAIR: Attorney, we are at your amendment No. 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move the amendment standing in my name for the reasons I outlined momentarily ago:

Amendment No 1 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 16, after line 17 [clause 15(9)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(aa) to provide advice to the Minister in relation to the disbursement of the Animal Welfare Fund;

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I indicate that the opposition are in support of the government's amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 16 passed.

New clause 16A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 23 [Franks–1]—

Page 16, after line 39—After clause 16 insert:

16A—Annual report

(1) The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must, on or before 30 September in each year, prepare and deliver to the Minister a report on the operations of the Committee during the previous financial year.

(2) The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving a report under this section, cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 16A would require an annual report from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which must on or before 30 September in each year be prepared and delivered to the minister to report on the operations of the committee during the previous financial year, and then to be tabled by that minister within 12 sitting days after that receipt and to be laid on the table of both houses of parliament.

This, put simply, requires annual reports from a body that we are putting a lot of faith in, and now have given some funding power to, to actually report so that, should they not meet again for an entire year, we might well know about it and, should they have decisions, we would be able to see who was advising what, where and when.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to the chamber. My advice is that there are requirements that are followed in relation to reporting, so it is the government's view that this is unnecessary.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the drafting of this bill, the government had not actually afforded this particular body some of the powers that they have just given them in the previous amendment moved by the government. Do they now not think perhaps that might change their attitude to requiring an annual report to be more transparently provided?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there are a lot of requirements that do go to the requirement for reporting.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 17 to 32 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:17.