HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RACEHORSES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:36): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to prohibit the whipping of racehorses.

I was going to say I am flogging a dead horse, but that is a poor expression. I believe it is inappropriate in this day and age to whip racehorses. If members watched the Melbourne Cup, they might recall that the winner did not whip the winning horse, Dunaden, in the final stretch at all. Maybe the horse appreciated that and decided to give him a win.

We have heard all the arguments that the whip is not to hurt the horse. If you talk to a vet like the member for Morphett, he will tell you that if they do not feel it there is no point whipping them. Why would you hit a horse if it does not feel it? People say that the whip is there to guide the horse. Why do we not allow the whipping of dogs, cats and people, because they obviously do not feel it either? Racehorses would feel it. It is illegal to whip other animals. The argument that it does not hurt and they cannot feel it is a pretty thin argument.

It is the same in showjumping, if you want to guide a horse you might give it a touch. That is different from whipping and deliberately inflicting pain on a horse. In recent years there has been some modification of the whip so it is not quite as drastic as it used to be, but I do not think in this day and age there is a need to whip racehorses.

I do not have a problem with guiding the horse without belting the hell out of it. I do not have a problem with guiding the horse with a whip or something else. If no jockey can use a whip, there is no advantage or disadvantage to any other jockey. If it is going to be used as a guide then do not call it a whip, do not have it as a whip; call it something else and use it as a guide to the racehorse. We often see jockeys flogging the daylights out of their horse, which they are allowed to do, apparently, close to the winning post. If you think the horse is going to win you are allowed to whip it, which is strange logic.

Professor McGreevy of the University of Sydney's faculty of veterinary science has challenged the use of the whip in thoroughbred racing, and in 2009 received the British Society of Animal Science (RSPCA) Award for his innovative developments in animal welfare. The findings suggest whipping does not increase the horse's chance of finishing in the top three, and that they actually run faster when they are not being hit:

Under the rules set by The Australian Racing Board, the peak governing body for thoroughbred racing, only horses in contention to win a race can be whipped, yet 98% of horses in the most recent study conducted by Prof. McGreevy's team were whipped.

Most whip use occurred in the last 400 metres when the horses were fatigued, and the research found that the horses achieved the highest speeds when there was no use of the whip.

So I think it is time. I know this motion will not be carried, because there are people in here who are committed to horse racing not the horses; therefore the motion will not be carried. However, these things take a while to change, and I think community attitudes are changing. If the horse racing industry is seen to be carrying on a cruel activity then fewer and fewer people will participate, particularly women. It is not only women, but they are the ones who come to me expressing concern, and you will have fewer and fewer of them wanting to go to race meetings because of the use of the whip.

I do not think it is necessary to whip horses, particularly when they are really tired and most fatigued, and I think it is time that we moved to get rid of the whip. We could still have a guide if we want to have something to guide the horse, but not belt the daylights out of it simply to encourage it to go faster, when the research suggests that you get a better outcome if you do not whack the horse with a whip.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (12:41): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to indicate the government's opposition to this motion. First, I would like to acknowledge the racing industry for how it conducts itself in relation to the welfare of the animals used for its events. They take the matter of animal welfare most seriously.

I am advised that the Australian racing industry has rightly adopted a national approach on the matter, with the provisions as to the use of whips covered under the Australian Rules of Racing for thoroughbred racing and the Australian Harness Racing Rules for harness racing. The state government supports the racing industry's view that the use of the whip within Australian racing is appropriate.

The use of whips takes place within a regulatory framework which achieves world's best practice in welfare and safety. I am advised that on 28 September 2011, following a 10 month review, the British Horseracing Authority announced that jockeys in the UK will face stiffer penalties for the use of the whip under new rules. These new roles are mostly similar to those that have been in place in Australia since 2009. The British Horseracing Authority's Director of Equine Sciences and Welfare said that the review had concluded 'there is still a place for the whip in racing, but far tougher sanctions for misuse will now be meted out to offenders.' Other relevant findings from the inquiry were:

that there is a legitimate role for the whip in racing, and that with appropriate design and controls on use it does not compromise the welfare of horses during a race; and

the use of the whip for the safety of the horse and jockey was accepted by all those consulted by the review group. Safety applies not only to the individual horse and jockey but also to others in the race. While this applies to both flat and jumps racing, in jumps racing there is the added dimension that a horse may back off a jump, placing both itself and its jockey at risk of injury. A jockey has a duty of care to the horse and the use of the whip, in the correct manner, forms part of that duty of care.

The Australian Racing Board's Integrity and Welfare Committee subcommittee oversees, amongst other things, policy-making in relation to animal welfare. Welfare guidelines for Australian thoroughbred racing have been adopted by the Australian Racing Board. The Australian Rules of Racing are enforced by racing bodies throughout Australia and contain clear prohibitions regarding cruelty to racehorses. The industry has a demonstrated commitment to policing these provisions and punishing any offenders.

I am advised that the current regulations on the use of the whip were introduced by the Australian Racing Board in 2009 following a comprehensive process of consultation. All groups with an interest in this policy were given a full opportunity to contribute. The regulatory framework that governs use of the whip in thoroughbred racing in Australia is contained within the Australian Rules of Racing which are made by the Australian Racing Board, of which South Australia's controlling body for thoroughbred racing, Thoroughbred Racing SA, is a member. The current regulations have five key elements:

The Australian Racing Board has mandated that only padded whips meeting prescribed specifications are able to be used in Australian racing;

Tight controls have been imposed on the way in which the whip may be employed, including a prohibition on jockeys bringing their arm up above shoulder height;

Prescriptive limits have been introduced capping the amount of times for which the whip may be used in a race, including a requirement that, from a start of a race and up until 100 metres from the finish line, the whip may only be used in a forehand manner no more than five times and never on consecutive strides;

They proscribe many circumstances in which the whip may or may not be employed. For example, the whip may never be used where it is apparent that it has no prospect of improving the placing of a horse; and

Conferral on the stewards sweeping powers to penalise any jockey, trainer or others who are guilty of breaches of the whip provisions of the Australian Rules of Racing.

The regulations create an environment in which the whip is able to be used for appropriate purposes of safety, control and communication and at the same time ensuring the welfare of the Australian racehorses. The Australian Racing Board is of the opinion that there are no grounds for proposing any further changes to the current rules relating to the use of the whip in Australian racing. The state government concurs with this view.

Of course, whips are also used by drivers in harness racing, and Harness Racing Australia has a very strong policy on animal welfare. New rules in relation to the use of whips in harness races came into effect on 1 January 2010 as an animal welfare measure. Further amendments to the rules came into effect on 1 April 2011. A driver using a whip in a manner that cuts or severely welts a horse will be deemed to have used a whip excessively and is guilty of an offence. Regard for the care and safety of horses and fellow competitors is paramount.

Harness Racing SA has a policy that requires a veterinary surgeon to be on duty at all harness racing meetings. One of the veterinary surgeon's tasks is the inspection of horses 'post race' for welt marks from possible whip use. For these reasons, the government opposes this motion.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:46): I confirm that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the motion from the member for Fisher. I did listen to his contribution. I understand the intent of it, and I can reflect upon the fact that probably members from both sides of the chamber might have a different opinion from their party position on it; however, I do confirm that the opposition will not be supporting the motion.

My reason primarily, though, if I can refer to some information provided to me, is that the current rules only permit a jockey to whip a horse five times from the beginning of the race to the final 100 metres, at which point the jockey has full discretion. During the final 100 metres jockeys are bound by the rules of racing, which prohibit the whipping of a horse if the horse is not responding, if the horse is clearly winning or if a horse is not in contention to win.

Only approved padded whips are to be used, and the stewards are empowered to penalise jockeys, trainers and others who are guilty of breaches of these whip provisions. Horseracing is an industry that has been enjoyed by thousands, if not millions, of people for hundreds of years. It involves a level of coercion to ensure that the performance of the horse is the best that it possibly can be, and an enormous amount of money is involved in that.

However, I do believe sincerely, even from my very limited observation of it, that trainers and jockeys have the interests of the horse at heart. They want to get the best possible result out of it but they want to ensure the safety and the continued ability of the horse to race. With those sorts of provisions in place, and certainly opposition members have discussed this, the recommendation of the Hon. Terry Stephens (the shadow minister for recreation, sport and racing) to us was to understand the intent behind the member for Fisher's motion, to appreciate how important the industry is to the economy of South Australia, Australia and various places around the world, but not to support the motion.

I commend the member for Little Para for the information that he provided to the house about why the government has formed a position of not supporting the motion. It appears to me that, while some members may hold other opinions in support of the industry and in support and in recognition of the rules that exist, it is important that this house not support the motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:49): I, too, rise to say that I do not support the motion. I respect the intentions of the member for Fisher, and I am sure that every member of this house supports him in strong opposition to any form of animal cruelty, but I think there are very good reasons for not supporting his motion.

I would also like to put on record that I am the proud patron of the Port Augusta Racing Club and that, while I do not have a financial interest, I certainly have an involvement in this issue. I think this is a very responsible industry. The racing industry in Australia is improving all the time and is very diligent with regard to its attention to safety of animals, spectators, jockeys, trainers—all people and all animals involved in the industry.

It is a responsible industry and, in fact, very much part of an international industry. It is one of the very few sporting, recreational, entertainment industries that thrives in Australia and is simultaneously part of any international industry. I was told very recently that the racing industry in Australia is about the fourth largest employer in Australia, so that is very important as well.

I would also like to highlight the fact that the Premier in his recent cabinet reshuffle chose not to retain a minister for racing, and I think that is a great shame given the importance of this industry to Adelaide and the rest of South Australia and how it fits in to the rest of the nation. I think that probably reflects the Premier's personal preferences and interests more than it does the public interest.

As the member for Goyder (representing the shadow minister for racing) has already mentioned, there are already very strict rules in place. A jockey can only whip a horse five times between the start of a race and the last 100 metres. A jockey is prohibited from whipping a horse within the last 100 metres if the horse is not responding, if the horse is clearly winning or if the horse is not in contention, and, importantly also, can only use an approved padded whip. There are serious penalties for any jockey or any trainer or owner who encourages a jockey to digress from these rules. The example that the member for Fisher gave the house of the horse that recently won the last Melbourne Cup not having been whipped at all and still winning proves that these rules work very well.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

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