HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

That the regulations made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985, concerning rodeos, made on 16 August 2007 and laid on the table of this council on 11 September 2007, be disallowed.

(Continued from 12 September 2007. Page 675.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:22): This is a motion to disallow the regulations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 concerning rodeos. The Greens oppose this motion. We support the government regulations that amend the rules covering rodeos to protect animals under 200 kilograms, and that effectively bans calf roping, plus a ban on concealable small cattle prods, and we congratulate the minister for bringing these regulations into force. The Hon. Michelle Lensink expressed concern that the industry apparently was not consulted about these regulations. That does concern me. The government should, wherever possible, seek to consult those to be regulated or other stakeholders before bringing in regulations, so I have some sympathy with that complaint. However, it does not alter my view on the merits of the regulations. Even if the rodeo industry was not directly consulted, it has known this was coming for some time. Similar provisions have been introduced elsewhere, such as Victoria, and given the rodeo industry's history of permit violations spanning more than a decade, it is inconceivable that it did not foresee this coming. However, I agree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink that formal consultation would have been desirable.

I will speak briefly and specifically about the issue of calf roping. One of the points made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink was to question whether these smaller animals under 200 kilograms are subject to greater injury. The honourable member referred to statistics provided by the rodeo industry that suggested that no harm was being done to the animals involved. My response would be that the minister is right to be suspicious, if in fact she is, of industry figures, which I understand have only been collected for the past couple of years.

It may be akin to asking the fox how many chickens it had killed. I understand that the primary injury sustained by animals subjected to calf roping is internal haemorrhaging, which is not evident without an autopsy. This means that the calf can be haemorrhaging in the thymus gland and the trachea, but not show any outward signs. Research provided to me from the United States, undertaken for the Humane Society, indicates that those types of injuries are present in animals that have been subjected to calf roping. I refer members to the Kritzberg Report, 'Potential Abuses in Rodeo Calf Roping', that goes all the way back to 1972, a report based in the US state of Colorado.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink complains that this is additional regulation and points out that this industry is already regulated through federal codes. I do not accept that, because the standards in those codes are only voluntary and in any event they are inadequate in many areas. As I understand it, there is not even a requirement for a vet to be present at these types of event. As a member of the RSPCA in South Australia—although I might also be regarded as a critical friend of that organisation—I note that it is the policy of the society, not just in South Australia but nationally, of being unequivocally in opposition to rodeos. The RSPCA nationally opposes rodeos, and I fully support that policy and urge all members to reject this disallowance motion and enable these regulations to continue to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals. In conclusion, calf roping cannot be allowed to continue if animal welfare within the rodeo industry is to be improved.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (17:27): The government has made great strides in animal welfare reform and more is yet to come with the bill before the house amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The community expects that animals will be treated humanely, whether they be companion animals or animals used by industry for food, materials or even entertainment. While there is often a particular focus on the animals that people have in their homes, and a justifiable intolerance of cruelty or misuse of dogs or cats, increasing attention is being paid to livestock and standards imposed on industries responsible for them. These are industries where, if things go wrong, animals may suffer injury, distress or painful death. It is the government's challenge to ensure that community standards and expectations are met by industry in ways that are reasonable and practical, and it is a responsibility that I as minister take very seriously.

Rodeos use animals for competition and entertainment and in so doing not only provide a competition circuit for participants but also often provide much needed income for rural communities. Nationally there is a code of practice agreed to be the binding rules for competition, and in South Australia since 2005 until 1 September this year that code of practice was appended to the regulations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, along with many other codes of practice guiding industry in the treatment of animals. This meant that a proven breach of the code of practice constituted a breach of the regulations and, in effect, was an offence. This position put South Australia at the forefront of rodeo regulation in Australia, along with our permit condition that a vet attend all rodeos.

While the concept of having the agreed code of practice in force by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was a good one, it was a concern to me that the wording of the code did not lend itself to being a document able to guide whether or not an activity was prosecutable. I therefore requested that the Department for Environment and Heritage work to turn that national code of practice into a regulation that would enable participants and animal welfare inspectors to be very clear about what was and what was not allowed. This move has been supported by the rodeo clubs. As one member said to me in a discussion about this regulation, 'I don't believe in shoulds and should nots but in musts and must nots.'

In the course of developing the regulation, the rodeo clubs made many suggestions for the practical application of the clauses, and nearly all those were incorporated into the regulation. I am very proud that the government has been able to take this step forward so that the public can be confident that, if the regulation is breached, a prosecution can occur. In the course of working on this regulation, I took note of two reforms that were recommended to me by the RSPCA, including a ban on the use of small electric prods (those that are easily concealed), which was already a condition of the permit, in order to ensure that the use of prods could be clearly seen by observers and therefore demonstrably in accord with the regulations.

The second was to follow in Victoria's footsteps and ban the roping of calves on the basis that young animals are distressed by being chased by men on horses, lassoed, pulled onto their backs and their legs tied together. Common sense dictates that an animal that is not fully developed is much more vulnerable than a fully developed animal to the adverse effects of this treatment. On the whole, the general public do not like to see grown men on large horses chasing down and tossing baby animals; quite frankly, I do not blame them. I was advised that not only was this an event that the RSPCA regarded as the least acceptable event at rodeos but also that precluding that event did not mean that rodeos were unable to proceed. As I have said many times, this government has absolutely no intention of banning rodeos.

I take representations made to me by the RSPCA very seriously. The society is the pre-eminent animal welfare group in South Australia. It enjoys very high credibility amongst the community and is entrusted by the government with the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Thousands of Australians donate to the society and leave bequests, call when they are concerned about the treatment of an animal and often visit the society's shelters to offer new homes for abandoned companion animals. On 4 July this year, I announced not only that I planned to make a regulation for rodeos, as I have described, but also that I intended to introduce these two reforms. Both the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer have tried to make much of the consultation process I used for this regulation.

I cannot work out whether they have been deliberately misleading, lack understanding or are just plain lazy. I cannot understand a member of the Hon. Caroline Schaefer's experience coming into this chamber and being so inaccurate about something as important as the regulation of animal welfare. Similarly, the shadow spokesperson for the environment needs to be careful when she makes statements that are so wrong and inaccurate about the consultation process undertaken in respect of this regulation to this act. Coming in here and making claims that are wrong is quite simply unhelpful.

I will take some time to go through the extent of the consultation we undertook and also the manner whereby we ensured that clubs were aware of the final content of the regulation prior to the rodeo season commencing. On 8 July this year, staff from my department and from the RSPCA met for several hours with the rodeo club organisers and participants to go through what I proposed to do with the regulation. The two individuals mentioned by the Hon. Michelle Lensink were at that meeting. While the clubs were clear that they did not support the banning of calf roping, people there had many other positive contributions to make to the regulation itself.

As I said earlier, nearly all those suggestions were agreed to and have been incorporated into the regulation. Following this meeting, on 17 July I met with a number of rodeo club members to discuss my intention to ban calf roping, to create a regulation and to ban small prods at rodeos. The meeting was expressly called to hear their views on this, and not only did I indicate that I welcomed written submissions but I also extended the time the department had given originally for them to provide me with comments. So, I adjusted the time frame they felt could accommodate their input. Some individuals and associations chose to take up the offer.

Finally, at my request, my office sent out the new final draft of the regulation to all those who attended the meeting, and who had left their contact details, so that they were aware of what the regulation was likely to look like and could make any last changes. This included all those who attended the meeting with me. Three changes were made as a result of this last step in the consultation process. How the opposition can therefore claim that the regulation was 'sprung on the rodeo operators without any consultation' is quite simply misleading. This was not the last step.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You should check your facts. They are very clear, and I have outlined them before you today. This was not the last step in the communication process, however, as, after the government had endorsed the regulation, it was placed on the—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes; and more—the DEH animal welfare website and it was posted to rodeo clubs. The first rodeo this season was to be held on the last weekend of September; however, the outbreak of horse flu led to its cancellation. When the DEH next receives an application for a permit to hold a rodeo, along with a permit the organisers will be sent the new regulation to ensure that there is no uncertainty about the law as it applies to rodeos. So the opposition has failed to substantiate why the government should ignore the RSPCA's advice on an animal welfare matter that is so important, and it has quite simply made some false allegations about the lack of consultation when, in fact, there was substantial discussion and input with the clubs, as I have outlined. Yes; rodeo clubs would like to continue to rope calves; but, no, I will not allow that event to continue in South Australia—so we will disagree. I will not ban rodeos in this state but I will reserve the right to listen to the RSPCA when it raises concerns about animal welfare. I am proud that we now have a regulation that is unambiguous about what is and is not acceptable treatment of animals at rodeos.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:38): As I have indicated in my speech on prevention of cruelty to animals in the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, there is no credible evidence to support many of the government's proposed changes under this bill and, due to this fact, I will be supporting the motion of the Hon. Michelle Lensink that they be disallowed. I am concerned about animal welfare as much as anybody else. However, I also have concerns about ill-informed critics who set out to make disparaging comments about hard-working volunteers in our regional communities; people in the community raising money for important organisations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. These critics with their scaremongering tactics are threatening the livelihood of our country South Australians.

As I said earlier, many constituents have contacted my office because they are concerned that there is no credible evidence to support many of the proposed changes. For example, the Australian Professional Rodeo Association believes that many of these changes have been arbitrarily set in contrast with professional opinion. I have to say that it is a claim of many people (who are facing regulation under this government) that the consultation process is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show, if you like. Yes, the government may arrange meetings, people may attend, they may give their views and their opinions but, at the end of the day, they walk away knowing full well that what they have brought to the attention of a particular minister or minister's advisers has fallen on deaf ears and it has basically been a waste of time to even participate in the consultation process.

I have to say this relates to a number of issues (not just animal welfare) that have been coming before my office relating to legislation and regulation that this government is trying to put in place. I refer to regulation 13H(1)(a), which stipulates that an animal must have a body weight of at least 200 kilograms. The association believes that the existing weight of 100 to 130 kilograms (with the optimum weight of about 115) has been proven by the testing of cattle of different weights, which led to the approved roping device developed in the 1980s. The injury rate at this level is minuscule, with only two injuries in over 7,000 calves roped in a 10-year period.

One really has to wonder why injury to two calves in a 10-year period has received such attention to animal welfare rights from the minister. What is the government doing about the live shipment of animals for food? The minister mentioned that that is a major problem. How many thousands of animals are being transported in the most uncomfortable and inhumane conditions, and yet we have this statement about two calves in 10 years. All of a sudden, we have to be amending legislation and regulating rodeos. Rodeos are a part of Australian outback life. Perhaps city folk do not get it, but country folk certainly do—they love their rodeos. There is absolutely no logic in thinking that country folk would, for the sake of one rodeo, put in danger animals (for which they have paid a lot of money, especially now with the drought) that they have paid for, bred, spent a lot of time and energy in obtaining and looking after. If they thought that it was going to be dangerous to their animals, I guarantee that they would be the first to regulate their own industry.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Obviously this government does not believe that anybody is capable of self-regulating; this government has to stand over and regulate everybody and everything in order to get people to comply with the image of the model citizen. The association believes that it has been singled out unfairly, especially in South Australia. APRA has a widely-held reputation of being extremely proactive in addressing issues of animal welfare. Amongst those who have supported the association is one of Australia's leading veterinarian consultants, John Cornwall, AAWS member, a veterinarian with 50 years' experience and a former Labor minister in South Australia; and Rick Symonds, Department of Primary Industries, in Queensland, NCCAW member and chair of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Committee (who, with Warren Lehmann, is currently revamping the code in Queensland). It appears that there has not been adequate consultation or feedback in the drafting of this bill. The Rodeo Association informed me that it received no response when it contacted minister Gago's office to ask about the basis behind regulation 13H(14), which requires that any horse to be used in a rodeo event that invokes bucking must be at least three years of age. I remain unconvinced by the minister's response in the council today and on Tuesday 16 October and, as I said, I will be supporting the motion of the Hon. Michelle Lensink that these regulations be disallowed.

The Hon. I. Hunter: You’re disgraceful.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I am a disgraceful person. I am heartless.

The Hon. I. Hunter: Pathetic as well.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I actually care more about people.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.

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