HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT

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

That the regulations 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 14 November 2007. Page 1315.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:50): I rise today to respond to a number of questions raised in the course of the debate on rodeo regulations. Those questions particularly relate to the process used in developing the regulations and to a particular aspect of the regulations themselves. First, let me address the consultation process. From comments made by various speakers, it appears there has been some confusion about the consultation process that took place over the regulations.

I am in a position to provide some more detail on what actually occurred. I have been advised that, in fact, there were two stages in the consultation process with four separate opportunities for input. First, there was consultation on the drafting instructions, which will be used to write the regulations; and, secondly, there was consultation on the draft regulations themselves. The first stage of the consultation process involved a meeting involving representatives of most rodeo clubs, two senior public servants and the RSPCA representative at Marrabel on 8 July this year.

The meeting took about three hours to work through, line by line and word by word, the drafting instructions (not the final version) used to draft the rodeo regulations. Detailed notes from the meeting, including the changes proposed by the meeting, were subsequently emailed out to rodeo clubs within a few days of the meeting. Rodeo industry representatives then met with the Minister for Environment and Conservation on 17 July to discuss their specific concerns.

This meeting focused specifically on the proposed ban on calf roping through a weight limit and the banning of small electric prods at rodeos. A further period of two weeks was provided for comments from rodeo clubs on the drafting instructions. This included both written comments and numerous telephone calls from clubs querying aspects of the draft instructions and offering changes. I understand that all comments were considered in finalising the drafting instructions which were then submitted to cabinet.

Following the drafting of the regulations by parliamentary counsel, the second stage of the consultation process involved:

a copy of the draft regulations sent to clubs on 6 August 2007, and a further round of comments received and considered in finalising them; and

a copy of media releases sent to the rodeo clubs on 17 August 2007 outlining the main aspects of the regulations which had been approved by Executive Council and which would come into operation on 1 September 2007.

The entire consultation process thus took over a month, and there were at least four opportunities for input from the rodeo industry. While I understand that some in the rodeo industry may not be happy with all elements of the regulations, it would be unfair to overly criticise the consultation process. The provision of four opportunities for comment rates extremely well.

While the process has been condensed in terms of time, this was intended to ensure that the regulations would be available to the rodeo industry in advance of the commencement of the rodeo season so there would be clarity about the animal welfare rules for rodeos. As members may know, the rodeo season normally starts around September/October of each year.

In respect of the consultation process I have just outlined, the Hon. Sandra Kanck has asked whether Mr Mark Heuritsch and Mr Andrew Brown were in attendance at a meeting with the Minister for Environment and Conservation on 17 July 2007. My understanding is that these gentlemen were present at the meeting held on 8 July 2007 at Marrabel; however, they were not present at the meeting held on 17 July, where a number of representatives of the rodeo industry—including Mr Jim Willoughby, a senior rodeo judge, and Mr John Osbourne from the Australian Professional Rodeo Association—were present.

As to the regulations themselves, the most contentious issue raised in the consultation process was that of the weight limit on calf roping. In indicating support for the motion by Family First the Hon. Andrew Evans queried why the minister used a 200 kilogram weight limit to effectively ban calf roping instead of just banning calf roping outright. I understand that this is a drafting issue.

The National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare Standards for the Care and Transport of Rodeo Livestock, on which regulations are based, defines a rodeo as a competition using cattle and/or horses which includes one or more of the following events: saddle bronc riding; bareback bronc riding; bull riding; steer riding, roping and tying; steer wrestling; and team roping. There are no definitions supplied for calf roping.

The event we know as calf roping is, in fact, not specifically referred to in those standards but is a 'roping and tying' event on cattle that, I understand, is done on cattle normally weighing between 100 kilograms and 130 kilograms. Thus, to ban an event named calf roping we would first have to define that event and then differentiate it from other events involving roping and tying. The simplest way of doing this is to use a weight standard. As the minimum weight suggested in the National Rodeo Standards for steer wrestling and team roping events is 200 kilograms, this was used as the cut-off point for any animals used in events involving roping and tying. This weight limit is also consistent with the Victorian legislation.

At every point in the consultation process I understand the minister has clearly stated the impact of the regulations on calves. It is untrue to assert that the minister was not open about the impact, and I am sure that the Hon. Andrew Evans, if he wishes to confirm this, could ask the minister to supply copies of her press releases, which made this perfectly clear. The Hon. Andrew Evans also indicated that he was told by the RSPCA that 'there was no science to justify this regulation on the basis of physical injury to the animal.' My understanding is that, whilst some might assert that the statistics on physical injuries may be low, those statistics do not record the bruising, pain and distress caused to calves which are likely to accompany calf roping, where the young animal is not merely roped but thrown to the ground and its legs tied. This must place considerable stress on these young animals and poses risks to their welfare.

Given that this event is held purely for its human entertainment value (such as it is), it is the policy of the RSPCA that calf roping is not justified on animal welfare grounds and should be banned. The government supports this position. By contrast, steer roping uses older animals at a greater weight—and that is the 200 kilograms minimum in Victoria that is now proposed for South Australia.

In conclusion, I suggest that, whilst attention has been focussed on the issue of calf roping, this is but one aspect of the regulations. The regulations as a whole are a significant advance on the existing rodeo standards. For the first time the rodeo industry will have clarity about exactly what will and will not be regarded as ill-treatment in the context of a rodeo event. The wording of the regulations has been carefully drafted by parliamentary counsel to dovetail in with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Welfare) Amendment Bill. This should provide clarity for the community and lessen the uncertainty which has prevailed for many years. I propose that the regulations be allowed to stand.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:47]

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (19:47): I would like to commence by thanking all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised that so many people took a position on this motion, which I initially moved because I thought that it would enable some form of debate and discussion on the matter of the regulation of rodeos. In summing up, I do not wish to repeat all the comments that I made when I initially moved this motion but I do want to state a few things for the record. First, I believe that there has been a distinctive shift in the policy of this government in relation to rodeos. I again refer to a letter from the previous minister for the environment, the Hon. John Hill, dated 16 March 2006, to Mr James Willoughby of the Festival State Rodeo. It states:

I am pleased to advise that this meeting was convened on 25 January 2006. The RSPCA, DEH and APRA agreed on the following statements:

rodeos in South Australia are far more regulated than in most other states;

the NCCAW [the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare] standards are practical and achievable, and it is the responsibility of rodeo personnel to ensure that these standards are met.

On the next page it goes on:

The government remains committed to ensuring that South Australian rodeos are conducted with the highest standards of animal welfare, including the presence of a veterinarian—

and I emphasise 'veterinarian'—

at every event, and will ensure that DEH, the RSPCA and APRA continue to work together to consider the implementation of further improvements to rodeos in South Australia.

The regulations, as tabled by this government, codify what is already taking place. I have had some correspondence from proponents of rodeos (who have been referred to in this debate), and they have examined the Hansard comments of a number of members who spoke on this motion. They say that, as far as they are concerned, other than the changes to calf roping and cattle prods, what is being proposed in these regulations is basically following the NCCAW standards. They state:

We, in South Australia, have stringently followed these standards, where we have had no injuries at all in the calf roping in this state under this code. In the last five years alone, where we can differentiate injury rates between calf roping and steer roping, it clearly shows that, in the calf roping event, there has been, in fact, only one injury which nationally is .024 per cent.

They have specifically raised the issue that calf roping has involved no injuries in South Australia. In fact, Victoria was the first state to introduce a minimum weight of 200 kilograms, which means that it is steers instead of calves. Victoria's injury rate is, in fact, higher than the national rate. The injury rate for steer roping (animals greater than 200 kilograms) is 0.112 per cent compared with 0.024 per cent. I think that they raise the valid issue of statistics, which are vigorously kept and provided to the Department for Environment and Heritage, and which in many ways speak for themselves.

On 17 October, in her contribution to this particular motion, minister Gago stated the following:

While the concept of having the agreed code of practice enforced 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.

We have a bill before us—the animal welfare bill—which makes a certain number of offences indictable. I would be surprised if the existing act did not allow a number of those issues to be addressed through that means.

I would like to reiterate that we have a situation in South Australia where rodeos comply with national standards. The regulations in effect codify those national standards as regulations. Yet, in relation to the bill before the council, which is the subject of a separate debate, there is not codification of those particular codes. So, I think it is germane to the whole issue of rodeos that they have been singled out for very specific treatment—and I use that word very carefully. I think they have been singled out, and I think that there are very minor sections of our community who have very strong views about what occurs at rodeos, who have perhaps captured the left wing corner of this debate, and are—to mix metaphors—the tail wagging the dog in this debate.

I have already mentioned injury rates. It is probably worth raising the issue of injury rates that occur in other comparable events which involve animals as competition. I think it would be interesting if the government were prepared to place on the record the injury rates for other competitions using animals, for example, steeplechases. A number of us have attended the Oakbank festival a number of times. Unfortunately, a number of animals are destroyed as a result of their involvement in that particular event. I would be very surprised if the injury and destruction rate of those race horses was lower than it is in some of the competitions involved in this particular regulation.

We have specific initiatives in South Australia instituted by the rodeo organisations, which specifically attempt to improve the treatment of animals and prevent injury. One of the proponents has written to me and stated:

Rodeos in South Australia use a jerk device to prevent injury. In the USA most calf ropers use a polygrass rope. These ropes have no stretch in them at all. In Australia very few calf ropers use a polygrass rope because our climate is too dry and these ropes go limp. Calf ropers here use poly ropes that have roughly 30 centimetres of stretch.

The proponent goes on to suggest that, if the minister wanted to improve the welfare of the calf she could ban the use of polygrass ropes in South Australia. Further, it goes on to say that the implement, the jerk device, has made the event safer. However, the device did not work on a 200 kilogram steer.

There has been some discussion about the issue of consultation in relation to this regulation. The people who have been referred to in this debate have put on the record their view on the consultation that occurred. I will refer to the minister's speech on 17 October, wherein she stated:

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 the RSPCA met for several hours with the rodeo club organisers and participants...

They state that on 4 July this year the minister released a media statement advising that small electric prods and calf roping were planned to be banned under the new regulations effective from 1 September, but stated that there would be no further debate on the issue. According to them that media release of 4 July was the first news of the proposed changes. Four days later, 8 July, which concurs with what the minister stated in her contribution, a meeting was held at Marrabel, where copies of the draft regulations were distributed and input sought. They state that during the lunch break an officer of the DEH was asked if the minister would change her mind if there was opportunity to present their side of the case in relation to calf roping. They state that this officer of the department was very nice and honest, but replied that it would be very unlikely, due to the media release, and that it would not look good to go back on that.

The perception amongst the proponents of rodeos is that the government has made up its mind that the media release of 4 July had set the case in stone and it would be very hard to resile from that position. Any further representations that may have been made after that date would fall on deaf ears and the proponents of rodeos continue to provide representations and have stated that the minister sent emails about the changes, but requested that no more information be sent about calf roping after receiving a report from APRA. They have stated the case quite clearly, and I do not think anybody has sought to misrepresent any positions.

The Hon. Caroline Schaefer and I met with representatives of APRA and the Festival Rodeo Association, which, as I mentioned previously, clearly struck us as very genuine, somewhat surprised and clearly having the interests of animal welfare at the front of mind in all of its organisation and capacity in terms of rodeo events. There is that aspect of it. There is also the issue of the contribution that rodeos make to the life of rural and remote communities. They play a significant fundraising role and provide a community meeting point which is very important in the life of a number of our rural communities which, as we all know, are experiencing drought conditions.

So, I think it is quite unfair for the rodeo organisations to have been singled out in this way and made an example of when their injury rate is incredibly low and their reporting standards are rigorous. They have a veterinarian at every event. They do it with the interests of their community at heart and provide a central meeting point for their communities, and they are run by volunteers. That they should be made an example of, particularly when there are other competitive animal events which clearly have much higher injury rates, I think is completely unfair, and I urge all members to support the disallowance motion in favour of the rodeo sector.

Motion carried.

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