Bills

Animal Welfare Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 19 February 2025.)

Clause 33.

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

Amendment No 24 [Franks–1]—

Page 24, after line 21 [clause 33(3)]—Before paragraph (a) insert:

(a1) to promote the ethical, humane and responsible care of animals used for scientific purposes; and

This prioritises animal welfare for animal ethics committees with regard to scientific purposes, so again, putting into these particular bodies we have established a priority for animal welfare. It will insert a paragraph at (a1) to, 'promote the ethical, humane and responsible care of animals used for scientific purposes'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will not be supporting the amendment. I am advised that the purpose of animal ethics committees is defined in the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, which is given legal force and recognition in this bill. The responsibilities of the committees are consistent with those similarly across the country.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 34 to 50 passed.

Clause 51.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 37, after line 16—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A court must, at the request of the prosecution, on finding a person guilty of an offence against section 7(1) or (2), make an order forbidding the person to acquire, or have custody of, any other animal or any other animal of a specified class, either until further order or for the period specified in the order.

I spoke on this in relation to an amendment that the Hon. Tammy Franks had before us yesterday, so I will not speak again but rely on what I informed the chamber previously.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens' support for this amendment and thank the government for working constructively on this very important issue, ensuring that animal prohibition orders apply upon the prosecution's request for people found guilty of ill-treatment offences, especially when intending to cause death or serious harm or being reckless about causing death or serious harm to an animal.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate the opposition will be supporting this amendment as well. We think it is a sensible amendment and a reasonable compromise.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 37, line 17 [clause 51(2)]—Delete 'subsection (1)' and substitute 'this section'

This is an administrative change because it includes section 51(1)(a) relating to mandatory granting orders for the aggravated offences.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 52 passed.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks to insert new clauses 52A to 52E.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 25 [Franks-1] seeks to ensure protection for informants or whistleblowers when disclosing conduct relating to an offence. Before I move it, though, I understand it is similar to the government's amendment No. 4, so if the government could indicate their intentions there, I will take it from there.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that the government has tabled and I will be moving amendment No. 4 standing in my name.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens will support the government amendment and thank them again for working constructively on these important issues. So I will not be progressing with amendment No. 25 [Franks-1].

Clauses 53 to 57 passed.

Clause 58.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 27 in my name will not be progressed with and note again that the government has come to the party and worked constructively on these important issues. I do intend to progress, however, with amendment No. 1 [Franks-2]. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 41, after line 21 [clause 58(2)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) levy amounts payable in accordance with subsection (2a); and

This ensures the victims of crime levy would be hypothecated into the animal welfare fund. I assume I can also move amendment No. 2 [Franks-2] at this clause. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 41, after line 29—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Any levy imposed under section 32 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001 on a person who is convicted or, or who expiates, an offence against this Act is payable into the Fund (instead of being paid into the Victims of Crime Fund under section 30 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001).

The CHAIR: I am going to put it that it be a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend clause 58.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the government: any levy imposed under section 32 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001 on a person who is convicted, or who expiates, an offence against this act is payable into the fund instead of being paid into the Victims of Crime Fund under section 30 of the Victims of Crime Act 2001. It ensures that it is hypothecated into animal welfare rather than—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate, for the easy conduct of the committee, the explanation. The government appreciates that animals are victims of offences under this bill; however, we are not intending to put money into a different scheme that would create a rather bespoke way to do it that differentiates it from nearly all other offences.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 59 to 73 passed.

Clause 74.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I see this amendment as consequential on previous failed amendments. It would have simply referred to the codes of practice being subject to oversight by the independent office of animal welfare, so I will not proceed with that one.

Clause passed.

Clause 75 passed.

Clause 76.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to speak on this clause and to answer a series of questions the Leader of the Opposition put at clause 1. I thank her for that, because it has given us time to consider the answers, which are of benefit to all of us. The question was asked:

In relation to 76A is a person entering a property unlawfully (trespass, break and enter) to gain information on animal welfare issues, immune to prosecution if a report of alleged convention is successfully progressed?

My advice is that, no, this amendment does not provide any authority or approval to seek information via unlawful means, nor does it provide any immunity to prosecution for that unlawful entry. A question was asked:

In relation to 76A is an owner preventing access to their property by another person an act to 'hinder another person in making a report'?

My advice is that, no, this amendment does not make preventing access to your property an act of hinder. This provision seeks to prevent someone from intimidating or threatening someone not to make a report to an authorised officer or someone they know or believe it to be true. It provides no overriding power to go seeking more information or evidence to a member of the public. The next question was:

…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?

My advice is that the bill on this amendment does not provide immunity to prosecution if a person commits a crime to gain access to a document for an animal welfare issue. The same evidentiary provisions apply—unlawfully obtained evidence would be a matter for the courts. This provision does not provide an exemption or immunity. The question was asked:

…if a person has committed a crime to gain access to animal welfare information (trespass, break and enter) is their information admissible?

I am advised that the same evidentiary provisions apply. Any evidence obtained through illegal means would be a matter for the court and liable to the same restrictions as in any other situation. A question was asked:

…if someone tries to stop a person from committing the crime of unlawfully (trespass or break and enter) being on a primary production premises, is that someone 'obstructing a report of alleged contraventions'?

My advice is that the situation described would likely fall under the Summary Offences (Trespass on Primary Production Premises) Amendment Act 2020, as outlined. The wording of the provision of this amendment is quite clear: that you must not prevent another person from reporting without a reasonable excuse, nor hinder or obstruct someone from making that report.

Reporting—and I am advised 'reporting' is the key term—and the provision does not create an ability for someone to bypass other legal requirements, including that under the Summary Offences Amendment Act 2020. The amendment that has been moved does not create an exemption or an immunity for someone to go looking for information or to take documents or other evidence. It is about ensuring that someone is not threatened or otherwise prevented from making a report.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the Attorney for the answers to that series of questions that I put forward to the house on Tuesday. I can indicate that the opposition is satisfied with the Attorney's answers and will be supporting this amendment.

Clause passed.

New clause 76A.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 47, after line 34—After clause 76 insert:

76A—Obstruction of report of alleged contraventions

A person must not, without reasonable excuse—

(a) prevent another person from reporting to an authorised officer an alleged contravention of this Act; or

(b) hinder or obstruct another person in making such a report.

Maximum penalty:

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

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

By way of explanation, this is to strengthen the legislation with greater enforcement options. It is a significant step forward in that reports by the public need to be able to be made about the potential ill-treatment of animals. We have gone through the reasons for that and what this does not entail, importantly, in the amended explanations that I was able to provide to the Leader of the Opposition.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (77 to 79), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (12:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:12): I just want to very briefly express a repeat of the gratitude to the minister and the consultation process that was undertaken for this bill. The information that has been provided to members of this council to inform our deliberations and debate have been, I think, a model for other bills to follow: quite extensive, quite thorough and incredibly transparent.

I reiterate the thanks I previously made but I also want to add and acknowledge Animals Australia's Glenys Oogjes, Shatha Hamade, Naaman Kranz, Jed Goodfellow from Australian Alliance for Animals, and Dr Rebekah Eyres from the RSPCA of South Australia, in particular, for providing really detailed feedback, which was invaluable in assisting the Greens in our deliberations, as well as the Animal Law Committee of the Law Society of South Australia and, in particular, Mr Ronan O'Brien and policy chair Mr Nathan Ramos.

I want to make sure for the record that both of those factors, I think, really informed this debate and made it a very productive one and I hope a much better set of laws to support animal welfare in this state into the future.

Bill read a third time and passed.