HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-07-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 July 2022.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:00): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition on this bill. I rise to advise the house that the opposition will be opposing the bill but will support the amendments as introduced in the other place by the Hon. Ms Bonaros on behalf of the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC.

We know that jumps racing has been a longstanding tradition in the thoroughbred industry for nearly 150 years in South Australia. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you are well aware of the long-serving families involved in this sport, especially in your own electorate, sir; some of them may have also had law firms in your neck of the woods. We recognise that there is a debate around its continuation, particularly within the last 10 years.

I believe it is important to consider the history of this debate over the last decade for some context. A select committee was established in 2016 to review whether jumps racing ought to be banned. The current Minister for Racing was a member of that committee, which ultimately recommended against the ban. The committee instead recommended that the industry should in fact be given time to independently demonstrate improvements outlined in the recommendations. The industry did demonstrate some improvements for sure.

On this side of the house, we have no doubt that the industry participants take their responsibilities very seriously. They are deeply invested in the sport, and they care deeply for their horses as well. I have had the great privilege to be racing shadow minister for only a few months, and these trainers absolutely love their horses. It would be very unfair indeed to accuse trainers of being in any way dismissive, ignorant or cruel.

We understand that this debate is emotive, and the whole practice concerning jumps raising more broadly and whether it continues has been an emotive one. However, in this state a decision effectively has already been made. Racing SA announced in 2021 that jumps would no longer be scheduled in the South Australian racing calendar from 2022 onwards. A legislated ban is therefore, in our opinion, absolutely unnecessary.

Racing SA, as the peak industry body of racing in South Australia, has already effectively made a decision to end jumps racing across the state. This is on trend with the majority of states that have discontinued jumps racing in some form, and these states have often been used for the sake of contrast in the other place. The fact is that the only state ever to introduce a legislated ban on jumps racing is the state of New South Wales.

South Australia is in no sense being inconsistent with or contradicting the rest of Australia, as seems to be suggested in this chamber and in the other place. However, given that Racing South Australia is indeed the peak racing body in this state, it is entirely appropriate that it is the body that administrates jumps racing and not this house of parliament.

We say that government should not be unnecessarily interfering in the day-to-day administration of a sport. If the Labor Party wants to use its majority to start interfering in the administration of sport, the question is: where does it end? Where does it end and which sport does it extend to next? What sport will the Labor Party try to ban in this state? What sport will the Labor Party try to interfere with in its administration?

We are the party of choice, we are the party of small government and we do not believe in creating laws that simply do not need to be made when the peak body of a sport has already made the decision. We do not need this legislation.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:05): I rise to take this opportunity to endorse and very much commend the remarks the member for Hartley made just now in relation to this proposed legislation that has been brought to the house in something of a rush. I listened carefully to the Deputy Premier's contribution in her second reading speech yesterday and, subsequently, late morning yesterday and, subsequently, there was an indication from the government that this will be brought on for debate immediately.

My first question is: what is the rush? What is the rush about bringing this matter to the parliament, particularly in circumstances where this affects an industry that is regulated and highly engaged with the public process? It is the subject of ministerial responsibility in terms of the industry more broadly. The member for Hartley has certainly addressed remarks in the context of his responsibilities as shadow minister for racing.

What we see here is a provision that will affect the racing industry in a particular way, introduced via an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 1985. I just want to make the observation that, as a matter of principle, we are considering here a proposal to amend part 3 of the Animal Welfare Act and to lump in those who have participated in something that enjoys a proud tradition over a long period of time, to lump in those who have participated in what certainly can be described as an industry; it can also be described as a sport. It can also be described very thoroughly as a way of life for a large number of people not only in our state and not only in our nation but across the world

It lumps them in with a category of behaviour that is otherwise restricted to what we see as prohibited activities, including the organising of animal fights, the engaging in live baiting, the releasing of animals for captivity for supply to a person so that they may be subjected to deliberate forms of harm, and the like. Those prohibitive activities that are described in part 3 of the act are a category of behaviour that is rightly to be condemned in relation to the nature of the engagement with the animal.

My submission is that when we deal with racing, when we deal with in this case a particular category of horseracing, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with and looking to regulate the behaviour of care and sincerity of those who have engaged with animals over a long period of time and in a way that has enjoyed a proud heritage.

It is curious, in this regard, to compare what the direction of Olympic sport involving humans has been over the course of the last century. We saw steeplechasing introduced into the Olympics in 1920 in Antwerp, I think it was, for men running a steeplechase course over 3,000 metres. The Olympics proudly introduced the possibility of women participating in that event in Beijing in 2008 as an extension of the nature of athletic performance involving humans.

At the same time, the concept of steeplechasing where it involves horses is now to be condemned within part 3 of the act, and I think that is a shame. It is not my particular personal heritage or history. Steeplechasing originally emanated from the concept of racing from one steeple to another, from one town to another, from one church steeple to another, via all the walls and creeks and so on in between. It is a response to a spirit of competition, a tradition of community and a tradition of sport.

The member for Hartley referred to the only other place in which legislation of this kind has been passed by a state parliament. That was in New South Wales in 1997 in the very early days of the Carr Labor government at that time. It introduced what was, in that case, a very simple provision applying itself to the banning of steeplechasing and hurdling without reference to animals in particular. I note that at the time there was a tradition of involving the hurdling of greyhounds.

It otherwise was a piece of legislation that concerned a prohibition against the tethering of birds. It was a rather odd piece of legislating, if I may say so, and parts of it have since been repealed. However, it appears to be characterised by the same resort to a signal to those who might feel strongly about this sport. It is not the way to go about legislating in this area.

To make that point, and to put it on the record for those who would speak in terms of principle about this, in her contribution yesterday the Deputy Premier referred to the fact that, as we know, the racing industry in South Australia has determined, for the time being, that there will be no more jumps racing. One could say then that we are talking in moot terms here in the house now, and it is harmless to therefore put in some legislation that closes the door after the event.

The Deputy Premier referred to the fact that there may be trainers out there in the South-East, for example, who are involved in the training of horses for this purpose who might then take them over the border into Victoria so that they can participate in jumps events in Victoria—and that is okay, according to the Deputy Premier. So, far from providing some means by which there will be an end to the part 3 category of cruelty that this will now be categorised as, it is okay, according to the movers of this legislation, notwithstanding this being inserted, for people to keep on training their horses and then take them over the border to compete.

Far from this being an end to it, it is leaving open a possibility—just do not do it here. Further, and as I have indicated, for those who have been involved, and sincerely over a long period of time with this area of sporting life, it will consign them and their interest to an equating with part 3 of the Animal Welfare Act.

It is not the way to unite a community, it is not the way to bring people together and it is not an appropriate way to legislate in relation to this field of human endeavour—let alone, may I say, is it appropriate business to be bringing on so urgently in this place when other important legislation is sitting waiting to be debated. So we should not be proceeding with this legislation and I urge all members of the house to think carefully on the matter.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:15): I was not going to speak on this particular bill. I am here as someone who is doing his chamber duty, but I thought I would get up and say something when we got that very odd comparison between human steeplechases and the horse steeplechase. I thought it was a very odd comparison, given the agency that a person has when it comes to steeplechasing. I was a steeplechaser. I used to do distance running—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: No, a runner. I bet anything that I am the only one here in this chamber who has actually raced at Oakbank. I have raced at Oakbank in a 10-k cross-country championship. I tell you what: the horses have my sympathy. That was a sodden track with the jumps, and even worse for the human beings we had to go up the hill as well several times in that race. It was a hard slog, but it was a hard slog that I voluntarily entered into.

I sat on the select committee during the Weatherill government when this came up before and I have say that I was semi-agnostic. I listened to all the evidence, and at the end of the day it does come down to a pretty simple fact: more horses are seriously injured and are put to death when it comes to steeplechasing in comparison to those in flat racing. This is no slippy, thin end of the wedge to get rid of greyhound racing or flat racing.

Members interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: Well, the Greens might come, but I do not think they are going to get much support.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Giles has the floor.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the members on my left get back in the saddle?

Mr HUGHES: At the end of the day, we have been talking about lots and lots of people involved in this. It is a minority sport, it is a very small minority sport, it is one that has diminished over the years. It is one that the industry itself, the wider horse racing industry itself, has some serious issues with. So I do not see any issue with legislating to ensure that, in this state, steeplechasing essentially comes to an end. As I said as to the comparison with human steeplechases—that great 3-k event, the steeplechase—it is voluntarily entered into. The horses are not given much choice. We know that horses do not naturally jump, they have to be trained. It is only in flight or in fear that horses in the wild clear hurdles. They have to be geared to go in that particular direction.

I say all of this coming from a family where my dad was right into horse racing. My mum lived and grew up in County Kildare next to the famous racehorse and horse stud in Ireland. I have family members in Ireland who are jockeys and quite famous jockeys, but they do not do jumps racing; they do flat racing. It is a diminishing sport and it has diminishing support, so let's just have some legislative clarity and see the end of it.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:19): I would like to make a small contribution to make it well known that I oppose this piece of legislation. As a former shadow racing minister, I saw firsthand what the jumps racing industry meant to South Australia and its racing history.

Yes, Racing SA have taken the jumps racing off their calendar. We understand that. While we have had contributions from this side of the chamber, I have watched the Deputy Premier squirming in glee with a KPI, that she is being part of putting an end to jumps racing and the proud history we have had here in South Australia for over 150 years.

What we need to understand is that those jumps horses were primarily once a flat-track racing horse. Contrary to what the member for Giles has said, whether you are racing uphill, over a steeple or over a jump, that is part of the discipline. Yes, the industry has modified the style of jumps that we have seen over a long period of time. Yes, we see much better and safer tracks in today's racing society to prevent injury to animals, and that is a response to the call for the industry to do more to make sure racegoers are happy with what they see on the track.

I want to make it really clear that the trainers, the owners, the investors and the racegoers have all shown an incredible sense of care, not only with their animals but with the preparation of the tracks, in making sure that all conceivable barriers or issues in front of the industry are dealt with. I am quite saddened that we now have a government prepared to legislate an industry. The government should have no role—the industry should be self-regulating, and I think it is—but we continue to see what I consider to be a left ideology by the government, the minister and the Deputy Premier coming in here and making light of taking away the freedom that the industry has had for a very long time.

While we have the Deputy Premier in here introducing this legislation, where is the responsible racing minister? Why is she not in here representing her sector? Why is she not in here representing her portfolio? Whether she is speaking for it or against it, where is she? Tell me.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: She is missing. We have a Deputy Premier—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member please resume his seat. I think there is a well-known parliamentary convention about the presence or non-presence of members in the chamber—in fact, it is a standing order, I am told. I would ask that the member for Chaffey abide by that standing order.

Mr TEAGUE: On the point of order that Mr Deputy Speaker has raised, and I do not demur at all, my understanding of the member for Chaffey's remarks was that he was referring to participation in the debate more broadly and not to the presence or otherwise of an individual member in the chamber at this time.

It may be that in the course of debate we see some participation from the Minister for Racing. We have not seen it to date. As I indicated in my remarks, this is properly introduced by the Minister for the Environment, the Deputy Premier; it is within the Deputy Premier's portfolio area for this legislation. The fact is that it impacts on the Minister for Racing, as has been adverted to in the course of the debate. As I say, it was my understanding that the member for Chaffey was referring to the course of the debate as opposed to anything that might transgress the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you for your interpretation. I do not accept it and I am standing by my initial ruling. The member will continue his remarks, but I caution him and also caution him about making comments on the potential motives and behaviour of other members on my right as well. I let one go, but the member needs to understand that I will pull him up in future for those comments. You have the floor, member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: I thank the member for Heysen for giving a clear explanation of my intent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, I just made my ruling. Your comments now are, in effect, a dissent from my ruling. Do you wish to dissent formally, or do I need to take other action?

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I will continue. As I have said, jumps racing has had a long history in South Australia. It has had a proud history and has responded to the calls for those who have had concerns with the impact on those animals, those horses that have traditionally raced on old sodden tracks with old technology as far as using jumps.

As I said, the industry have responded. They have modified their track conditions, they have modified the jumps, they have modified the length of the race and the height of the jumps. They have responded at every call, yet we are now seeing legislation introduced that is of great sadness not only to the industry but also to me personally. I am not an avid racegoer, but I do enjoy the competition on a racetrack. I do enjoy competition, first past the post, and that is by and large what the industry has shown over that 150 years.

As a member of the opposition, I will be vehemently opposing this legislation and, as has previously been said, if it is okay for the Queen, it is okay for jumps racing. The former Speaker in this place, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, I am sure would be very concerned about what we are seeing today. I am sure he will be on social media at some point, if not already, venting his displeasure that the Deputy Premier is, I am sure, going against his wish. We know that he is a passionate racegoer. He has been a longstanding supporter of the racing industry, and I am sure today will be a day that he will see that very dark grey cloud coming across the parliament here in South Australia.

It is with great sadness that we are having to debate this today. I concur with the member for Heysen's comments. I thank the shadow minister for racing for his contribution, and I am somewhat concerned that we have not seen the Minister for Racing make a contribution.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:28): I will not speak for long. I think yesterday's speech and the contribution from the member for Giles adequately conveyed the reasons in favour of passing this piece of legislation. I will respond, I think, to the heart of the question from the opposition about this legislation, setting aside personal views about the rights and wrongs of jumps racing, the question of whether it is of merit to legislate to ban something that has already been ceased through voluntary action by an industry. It is a legitimate question.

The answer to that, in my view, has come in the numerous contacts I have had from people in the racing industry, including the board of Racing SA yesterday evening, going out of their way to thank me for creating certainty for the industry. By doing this, by backing in a decision already made by Racing SA, we are creating a certain environment for the flat racing community to continue to grow and prosper.

While there may be different views about the wisdom of that, the question is certainly not a moot one about whether there is merit in legislating. The feedback I have had is that, overwhelmingly, those who have made the decision inside the industry to cease the racing are grateful to have the legislative backing so that they can stop having the argument with the relatively few people who hope one day that this will be brought back. With that, I would like to thank all the contributors, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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