HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (ANIMAL WELFARE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 3 June 2008. Page 3395.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I move:

Page 3, line 3—Delete 'Animal Welfare' and substitute:

Offences, Enforcement and Other Matters

This morning I have been at the Sidney Kidman building at Kapunda. There is a plaque on the side of the wall which says, '1900—350 horses were sold'. Under these proposals, they would not be allowed to do that. The bureaucrats would say, 'What a terrible thing, they want to sell horses: they might get disturbed.' The title of this obnoxious piece of legislation is inaccurate. Clause 1 says 'Short title'. I want to change it to ensure that it clearly indicates to those long-suffering people who will have to put up with some of this nonsense that it does deal with enforcement offences and other matters.

This particular piece of legislation and the clauses which will we be debating for I do not know how long—it is a pity that we are even debating them, in my view—are neither desirable or necessary to my way of thinking as a practical person. I am not someone who reads academic views: I have been involved. Remember this, members of the parliamentary Liberal Party will not forget this and it will be changed in the future. Those responsible will be called to account because we know that a little group of people have an obsession with this sort of behaviour. Their whole function in life is to make life difficult for people in rural communities.

Anything coming out of the Department for Environment and Heritage is not conducive to commonsense. We have a minister who is programmed by her bureaucrats and who has no practical understanding. We all know that. If members want to see what will happen, I suggest they look at what happened at the NRM parliamentary committee meetings last week and the week before when people played silly games and got cleaned up—and we have not finished with them yet: they will get the next lot of instalments. It is a lesson that bureaucrats should understand.

This coming weekend we have the Marree races, a small picnic race meeting, and they have other events. Will they be allowed to continue? We also have a plaque unveiling in honour of the great work that Tom Kruse did in servicing the outback. Just remember that these people are volunteers and this legislation is aimed fairly and squarely at them. We would not be voicing our opposition to these proposals if we did not have good grounds. We know what has happened at Marabel. Have the bureaucrats ever driven up the road past Marabel and seen the statue of the champion buck-jumper Curio? Have you seen it?

Mr Venning: Brilliant.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes; brilliant. As I said, Sidney Kidman and those people would be turning over in their graves at this sort of nonsense. This will make life difficult for people in South Australia. The biggest rodeo in the world, the Carrieton stampede, should not have to put up with any of this nonsense. You may win the vote, but I will ensure you pay a political price for this. Let me make no mistake, you will pay a political price. I look forward to standing up at rodeos and telling people what is happening—there will be thousands of people there—what they can do to ensure that rodeos continue in the future and how to make those who are responsible pay the price.

Minister, you are normally a reasonably responsible person. I am amazed that you have gone on with this. This is the last chance these people have to have someone to stick up for them. Once it passes through the parliament, who will be there? They will be in the minister's ear telling her about all these so-called wicked things and they will be promoted by Channel 7. I rest my case.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I would like to make a few comments in relation to this part of the bill. I think that, in a general sense, this measure is long overdue. I understand that the member for Stuart has concerns, particularly about rodeos. However, the reality is that, particularly in the city, attitudes to animal welfare have strengthened in the last few years. I know from people in my electorate who contact me frequently that there is a very strong voice amongst the urban population, at least, from those who are concerned about animal welfare. I understand that the money raised by rodeos has gone to good causes, and I would think that there is a place for entertainment but without inflicting cruelty on animals, and that that is something that could be achieved. Obviously, the member for Stuart does not believe that it will occur as a result of this bill.

We have a different standard in this country to many other countries about animal welfare. I just remind members that, for example, in many parts of Asia and the Middle East, animals are not stunned before they are killed in abattoirs. Japan has live fish with their flesh removed on the restaurant table. I have been there. I have been to a function where the fish was alive, it had had a lot of its flesh removed and it was sitting in ice whilst people had a meal sitting around it. If you tried that in Australia I think you would find yourself getting a visit from someone in a blue uniform.

People in the Middle East and people of certain religious faiths (including Muslim and Jewish faiths) have their animals bled to death in slaughterhouses, unlike the general practice in Australia. That practice is carried out in Australia in some areas, but it is not something that the general population in Australia would accept or wish to see practised. Currently, we have a very vigorous debate going on about the mulesing of sheep and lambs. It is a very difficult issue to address, because if an animal is stricken with a disease arising from being fly-blown it is awful for that animal and it often results in death. On the other hand, traditional mulesing is very severe and, I guess, quite painful, and measures are being taken now to use anaesthetic, clips and so on.

The point I make is that we have come a long way in terms of our treatment of animals and reducing cruelty to animals. I do not think members would find too many people in our society who would entertain the notion of cruelty to animals. But even recently (and I will not comment on a case which could be before the courts) we still have some people, whether it is through ignorance or malicious intent, I am not sure, who have little regard for the welfare of animals. I am not convinced that this bill will deal with the issue of puppy farming, which is something I wanted addressed in earlier legislation that I introduced to this parliament.

Nevertheless, I think that, overall, this bill is a positive measure, and I commend the minister in the other place for bringing it to the parliament. You will not please everyone on an issue such as this. It is a very sensitive matter. I understand what the member for Stuart is saying, that there are people in rural areas who see this as an unfortunate intrusion on their fundraising and rodeo activity, but I can tell him that the reality in the city is that there is a hardening of attitude towards people who are seen to inflict any form of cruelty on animals. I think that, overwhelmingly, the majority of South Australians would endorse this measure.

Some people will say that it does not go far enough. Some people would not want any activity to curtail or have controls relating to animals. Some people believe, for example, that cats should be able to do what they like, even if that means killing other creatures, but I do not share that view. I think the majority of South Australians would endorse this legislation. The opposition represents, particularly, parts of the rural environment, but I think that, overall and collectively, the people of South Australia support this measure, which I believe is long overdue.

In some areas it is probably not tough enough. I do not think that proposals to give people advance notice of inspections accords with common sense. If you tell people they are to be raided or checked, they will take steps to make sure that they do not infringe the law. It would be a little like giving criminals advance notice that the police will raid their premises. I do not think it makes commonsense to have provisions which give people unnecessary warning of an inspection.

We still have, despite this measure and others, some aspects of farming which are questionable, for example, intensive production of chickens in sheds. One of the large producers of chickens in South Australia contracts out to people to house chickens in these huge barns. The chickens never see daylight from the moment they are hatched to the moment they are killed, and I think those practices are questionable. People who visit these places say that if you saw the conditions you would never buy that brand of chicken.

It is not necessary in Australia or South Australia to have animals in such conditions where they never see daylight and never get out to free range at all when we have progressive producers who have free range production.

There is one chap interstate who is producing 18,000 chickens a week in free-range conditions, with irrigated pasture between the sheds. It is possible and it is economical. I know from my local chicken shop at The Hub, since they have switched to free-range chickens, their business has actually increased. They charge about $1 more per chicken, but their business has gone up because people not only want to have better taste in what they eat, they do not like the concept of any form of animal cruelty.

In our society we have tolerated for far too long small cages where birds could barely move and the argument was that if you put them in together they will attack each other. Chickens are originally jungle creatures. They are fossickers. We had people (and I think this is where the Hon. Nick Xenophon was misguided) coming to the defence of people who had chickens in small cages, which was outrageous because those people had eight years to upgrade and to get rid of those small cages and then, when the day of judgment came, they still were not ready.

This measure I think overall is a step forward. No bill is ever perfect, but I believe that people can still have their rodeos under this bill, but they have to keep them within certain constraints to ensure animals are not unnecessarily harmed. I think as a society—and I do not classify myself as an animal libber—the treatment generally by humans towards other creatures is pretty appalling. If you think of the poor old dairy cow, and I like the odd milkshake, and it shows, but we get them pregnant and keep them pregnant to produce milk and then we slaughter the little calves. Humans are pretty outrageous in the way we treat other creatures.

It is one thing to kill them, it is another thing to treat them badly and I think this bill tries to impose standards which are a step forward from where we are, but I think we have still got a long way to go before we reach a point where we can genuinely say we, as a community, are committed to animal welfare.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Unfortunately I had pressing family matters yesterday afternoon and was not able to make a second reading contribution on this. I speak from a position of having had a veterinary practice for 20 years and certainly animal welfare, as it is known around the traps, is a big issue. But you need to define animal welfare, or to have some concept of what you mean by animal welfare. That is why I have lot of sympathy for what the member for Stuart is trying to bring across with his amendment here.

I will be supporting his amendment for animal welfare because it depends whether you are speaking to people from the far left, with anthropomorphic views of animals and how they should be seen as equals with humans, or whether you look at some of the examples given by the member for Fisher; the attitudes of some of the Asian countries where animals are seen as even less than a commodity in many cases, and there are atrocious acts of barbarism and cruelty perpetrated for what they think are perfectly sane reasons. Nobody in Australia and certainly nobody in this place would sanction that sort of treatment.

I have seen lots of atrocious cases of intentional animal cruelty. I have also seen some cruelty that has been perpetrated out of ignorance. I would speak to people who were clients about the way they treat their animals, the way they deal with the welfare of the animals, and they were very well-meaning at the time, but it came out of ignorance.

The term 'animal welfare' is a warm, fuzzy term; it is an all encompassing term. It will incorporate people who are really in their own minds acting quite innocently out of ignorance. That is no excuse, sure, but at the same time we need to ensure that the owners of these animals—the people that are operating certainly intensive animal production, and who are operating rodeos—are operating with strict codes of practices, that they understand that the acceptable attitudes and methods that are considered appropriate in Australia are adhered to and applied at all times, and an education process needs to go on.

That is why renaming this offences enforcement and other matters is a good thing because this is about committing deliberate offences. It is not about capturing people who are going about their lives in a normal fashion and are acting out of ignorance. I am not condoning their actions because it is out of ignorance, but it should not become an automatic offence.

I will not start on examples because it will take too long, but there are so many examples of where people are acting quite innocently, but under this Animal Welfare Act they are treated as criminals. They need to be educated, the whole public needs to be made aware of their rights and obligations under this sort of legislation.

The change of name is only a small matter, but I think it is a significant matter in that we are outlining the particular offences, particularly an aggravated offence, because if you are perpetrating some offence that is outlined in this act here, the full penalty of the law should be coming down upon you. I will be supporting some of the increased penalties in here—not all of them, but some of them—certainly as a method of deterring an offence, but as a criminologist will always tell you, it is the prevention of the offence occurring which is the important thing, it is not about penalising people after the offence has been committed.

If we outline the offences, if we outline the way those offences can be enforced so that that can be a severe fine, or it could be some other education process, or it could be some, hopefully, pre-emptive construction of a code of conduct for an industry or for an event or for even owning a particular animal, whether it is a licence, so that people understand their obligations, that is very important, but then we have also got other matters here. So we are not restricting this legislation at all. In fact, we are expanding it even further to fulfil the true aims of this legislation, and that is to prevent cruelty and then continue to ensure that the general welfare of the animals is going to be maintained and enhanced, as we hope it to be, under modern attitudes.

What we must not do is allow this legislation to be overwhelmed by the quite unreasonable attitudes of people who, as I have said before, have anthropomorphic attitudes towards their animals, giving them the same rights as we humans and I for one do not believe that is the case. We have a responsibility as human beings to ensure their welfare but that is a much bigger issue than just saying, 'We're going to have a nice warm fuzzy term'—their welfare is much more than that.

We need to outline the offences so that people understand, without any ambiguity, what is an offence, what they must not do. These offences will be enforced rigorously by people who know what they are doing, not by well-meaning amateurs. Unfortunately, it has been the case for many years in the history of animal welfare that enforcement has been by well-meaning amateurs. They are well-meaning, sure, but let us make sure they have the experience and the right qualifications to put them in a position where they can judge what is happening at the time—not go in with preconceived views and (certainly, in some people's opinion) very misguided attitudes—and enforce this legislation that we are looking at today. I think this is a reasonable amendment which improves and broadens the aim of the legislation, so it should be supported.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thank members for their comments. I indicate to the house that the government does not support the amendment of the member for Stuart. All it does is change the name of the amending bill. I do not know why he would want to change it but, nonetheless, it is not a major issue. The member for Stuart made some claims that I would like to address. He implied, I think, in his suggestions, that the sale of horses would no longer be able to occur under this legislation. That is manifestly not true. I think he also implied that horse racing would no longer occur in this state. That is also manifestly untrue. The claims that the member made about my ministerial colleague in the other place and her being influenced by a clique, I guess, as he was suggesting, are all—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: I didn't use that word.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No, I know you didn't use that word—a cohort, or a cabal, or whatever. I cannot recall exactly which word the member used, but he meant a small group of people who have a particular view and that she is under the undue influence of those people. That is offensive to her. In fact, it might even be considered to be unparliamentary to suggest that the minister is not making decisions based on proper processes. So I reject that on her behalf.

I also reject the general claims in relation to the officers who work for the Department for Environment and Heritage. They have a difficult job to do and they do it to the best of their ability. They are not opposed to the public of South Australia, as the member suggests. At times they have to apply the law in the same way as police officers have to apply the law, and that sometimes puts them offside with the general public. That does not mean that they are hostile to the public: they are just doing their job as they are required to. So I reject all those claims and suggestions.

The member also said that there would be a political price to pay. That is fine. That is the job of being in government. You do what you believe is correct and, if there is a political price to pay, so be it. However, what I would say is that we think this is a balanced piece of legislation, which gets it right.

I thank the member for Fisher for his contribution and support, but I really want to turn to the comments made by the member for Morphett. I am sorry he has left the room because I do not like talking about someone in their absence. However, I think it was an extraordinary contribution by the member for Morphett and a very fine example of sophistry, trying to argue one way while going in the other direction.

In the last parliament the member for Morphett made a name for himself as being the charger on animal welfare issues. He raised a number of animal welfare issues in this place. It is interesting to see him resile from that kind of position of radical activism to one of supine support for the positions put by the member for Stuart. I think the difference is that the member for Stuart actually believes in the positions that he puts, whereas I think the member for Morphett may have a less sincere conviction in terms of his positions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. I think the comments of the minister are out of order. He is clearly reflecting on the intention and motives of the speaker to the amendment, and to suggest there is a reflection on his motives in doing that—

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —and to suggest that he is not genuine is out of order.

The CHAIR: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Morphett can speak if he believes he has been offended. The minister.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to hear the member for Morphett justify his position again. It would be of great interest to me. I would be interested to see whether or not he spoke strongly about the need to have strong regulations in relation to animal welfare, in particular, rodeos, as he mentioned. It will be interesting to see whether he supports the member for Stuart's amendments which will reduce the amount of regulation that can occur in that area. So I will be watching very closely the behaviour of the member for Morphett.

I understand that the member for Stuart is sincere in his position. I do not agree with it. I think his arguments are exaggerated, particularly as they refer to the motivations of people who work in the department, and the minister, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. As I say, the government does not support the amendment.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I wish to respond to the minister. My comments are made by someone who has had some association with the volunteers who run these rodeos and gymkhanas. I was with some of them on Sunday at the Carrieton rodeo. I am sure the minister will be pleased with my new-found interest in the arts, because I opened a large mural there. Those people were nearly all involved in the Carrieton rodeo, one of the biggest in South Australia. They are the ones who have been hassled. These are good, decent, upright South Australian citizens who only want to do good. It is a little community. The way in which those people who ran the rodeo at Marabel were treated was an absolute public disgrace. The Marree races (to be held on Saturday) and other events are run by volunteers.

The minister indicated last night that he had an anti-rodeo candidate stand against him: so did I. The Labor candidate at the last election went out of his way to say that no restrictions would be put on. I made an issue of it and he came along hook, line and sinker. Now the government has changed course halfway through the race.

People can make all sorts of comments about me, but I am only doing my job—make no mistake about that. I will stick up for these people. The government will get its way. Family First let down the families in rural areas over this issue. They cannot be relied upon; and I make no apology for saying that. We will tell families that Family First let them down. The minister will say that I have no right to criticise the minister.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: I did not say that.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: What I said was very mild, compared with what I could have said. In my experience, ministers in the government, other than this minister, do far better and are on top of their portfolio. I can give examples, and I might give some more examples this afternoon in relation to other matters. If we do not put matters in place now in order to improve the legislation it will be too late. As for the member for Fisher, I say to him: get in the real world, get in the world of reality, not make believe.


[Sitting suspended from 12:32 to 12:51]


The Hon. G.M. GUNN: In conclusion, my intention is based on my experience, observation and discussion with those people who conduct, run and plan rodeos and other events (such as campdrafting, and so on) in rural Australia. All these people want is be treated fairly, sensibly and reasonably. The more bureaucracy and impediments are put in place, the less inclined people will be to come forward to run these events, which provide entertainment and resources for small communities. I say to those people who have a misplaced view on these issues that what they are trying to do is change a traditional Australian culture; that is, managing and being with animals. This amendment to the title better explains the intention of this legislation.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thought the honourable member was moving an amendment, but now he is asking me a question about his amendment.

The CHAIR: I am sure it was a rhetorical question.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I have already said what I want to say.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (12)

Chapman, V.A. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Gunn, G.M. (teller) Hanna, K. Kerin, R.G.
McFetridge, D. Penfold, E.M. Pengilly, M.
Redmond, I.M. Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.

NOES (22)

Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O. Geraghty, R.K.
Hill, J.D. (teller) Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Lomax-Smith, J.D. O'Brien, M.F. Piccolo, T.
Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. Simmons, L.A.
Snelling, J.J. Stevens, L. Weatherill, J.W.
White, P.L.

PAIRS (6)

Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Rann, M.D.
Pederick, A.S. Wright, M.J.
Evans, I.F. Koutsantonis, T.


Majority of 10 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT