HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ANIMAL WELFARE (JUMPS RACING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2011.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (22:08): I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill which seeks to ban all competitive jumps racing in this state. As lead speaker and on behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we oppose this bill and we will continue to support the racing industry in this state in all its forms.

I will go on to outline the reasons for our particular position but, before I do that, can I just put on the record that I am not particularly interested in receiving 3,000 emails from people who want to tell me that I do not care about animals, that the Liberal Party does not love animals, that we have no interest. I will go through our Legislative Council team in the Liberal Party, and we are a small team so we quite intimately know what we get up to in most areas.

I will talk about our leader, the Hon. David Ridgway. His dog leads a life that most dogs would only dream of—spoilt rotten. The Hon. Michelle Lensink has cats (and I am not a cat person, I must say) that she loves to bits. The Hon. Stephen Wade has just built a house around his—I was going to say 'bloody cats' but that would be unparliamentary, Mr Acting President. The Hon. Stephen Wade has built a house around his cats.

The Hon. Jing Lee has, sadly, just lost a family pet. She spent a fortune in vet's bills trying to give it a long and happy life but unhappily it did not work out. I know that over the years the Hon. John Dawkins has had many animals his family have loved and cherished. Even the Hon. Rob Lucas (whom many on the other side often refer to affectionately as 'the smiling assassin') has a family pet he would die for—and if he wouldn't, his lovely wife, Marie, would ensure that he did die for!

As to my own personal set of circumstances, I have a female Rottweiler who is the only member of my family, when I come home at any particular hour, who loves me to bits, and I love her back. Last week, the vet kindly informed us that she needed a knee reconstruction, so $4,500 later, and wrapped in cottonwool, we are currently nursing our dog at home. It is more difficult than when we had our children because you can put a small baby in a capsule, or some sort of hand-held device, and take them places. I defy you to pick up a Rottweiler, when she is supposed to be quiet, and go about your business, so at the moment we are really juggling a busy lifestyle around our dog.

I see Mr Ivan Venning (member for Schubert) in the President's Gallery, and I suspect that his lovely wife, Kay, treats their German shepherd better than Ivan. I mean that in a jovial way, but I know that many of the Liberal family have been to Ivan's place and seen how they treat their animals. Mr Acting President, I know that you have recently adopted an aged dog and that you and your husband, Leith, care about this dog. So, before the Liberal Party gets the 3,000 mandatory emails saying that we are all dog haters or animal haters, or that we have no respect, I want to put on the record that we love our animals. In my own personal set of circumstances, I actually own and race horses with good friends. We—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Bloody slow ones.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Yes, most of them are slow, but do you know what? They are treated in the most amazing fashion—nearly as well as my Rottweiler at home, but not as well because they do not sleep inside and so on. A group of us had a horse called Upmarket Star. This horse won in the country and in the city, and it died in the paddock. In the middle of an electrical storm, when it was being spelled in lush pastures, it ran through a fence and smashed a leg, and I can tell you that you have never seen a group of grown men sadder about the passing of an animal.

This was not about financial or economic gain or loss; it was about a group of guys who had a common bond: we had a horse we loved to bits. We would meet at the stables on Sunday nights, have a beer and talk about life—it was a great escape. Do not tell me that people who are involved in the sport of racing are only interested in economic gain, because the reality is that very few of us ever see any sort of economic gain. I want that on the record because, when I receive those 3,000 emails saying that I do not care about animals, and that I am an animal-hater and all the rest of it, I want to dispel that pretty early.

The jumps racing industry has a rich history in this state, with the first hurdle race being run in 1842 in Adelaide. The Oakbank Racing Club's Great Eastern Steeplechase—the most popular and successful jumps race in this state—was first run in 1876. It also has a significant history in Victoria, with jumps races being run in the Victorian Racing Club in 1869 and the Warrnambool Racing Club starting steeplechases four years later.

A total ban on jumps racing in this state would affect 19 race meets, with a total of 26 races. The racing clubs affected by this bill are: Oakbank, Morphettville, Gawler, Mount Gambier, and Murray Bridge. All of those, except for Morphettville, are regional courses that rely on revenue from every single race in order to remain viable.

The jumps racing portion of the industry assists and supports the other sectors of the industry, with many trainers, jockeys and support staff shared across the racing industry. The Victorian and South Australian industries are so intertwined that a ban here would have a significant effect on the Victorian industry and vice versa. Last week I met with the Victorian Minister for Racing and he recognises the importance jumps racing has in his state's racing industry, as I trust the government here does. Whilst I am a staunch believer in animal rights, a ban makes no sense. These horses are bred to race, and some over-zealous attempt to respect so-called rights of horses seems ridiculous. A ban here will lead to calls to ban whips, followed by calls to ban equestrian, flat racing—where will it stop?

The horses are bred to race. They are a domesticated animal and cannot be released into the wild. Those against jumps racing like to cite statistics, and I will cite some now. In the last five completed jumps racing seasons fatalities amounted to 0.96 per cent of a total of 1,044 starters—a number, while higher than anyone would like, is relatively small when looking at the industry as a whole. No-one is denying that jumps racing results in more fatalities than flat racing, similar I am sure to athletics where hurdlers would be at a higher risk of injury than sprinters. A great flat racing champion died in track work last week. They are sad facts of life, but they happen.

Thoroughbred Racing South Australia and other industry bodies are working hard to minimise the risk of harm to horses involved in races, and it is in their interest to do so. Those seeking a ban make trainers, jockeys and all involved in this industry out to be barbaric people, yet I can safely say, having had a little to do with the industry myself over the years, that these people care the most about the animals they keep.

Two years ago Thoroughbred Racing South Australia appointed a panel to review jumps, which included stewards, ex-jumping riders and trainers, as well as a veterinary surgeon. This panel is constantly reviewing jumps racing and investigates all incidents that occur during races. Three years ago Thoroughbred Racing South Australia altered the angle of the hurdle to 55 degrees from 60 degrees in order to minimise the risk to horses. This is in stark contrast to what occurred in Victoria, where the president of the local RSPCA and a member of the Animal Welfare Advisory Council were part of a review panel that recommended the 'yellow-top' jumps. This style of hurdle was introduced on the false assumption that a smaller jump would be safer for the horse. This hurdle actually led to an increase in fatalities. This example highlights the danger in allowing those with little industry experience to impose binding conditions.

I move now to what is arguably the most important part of this debate, namely, the economic impact jumps racing has in this state. As honourable members know, the Oakbank Easter Racing Carnival is an institution in South Australia, not to mention a boon for the people of Oakbank and the greater Adelaide Hills region. I have had the pleasure of attending this year's event, as well as many in the past, and data compiled by the Oakbank Racing Club and the state government show that the Easter Carnival injects more than $57 million into the state's economy. Much of this goes back into the local area.

A 2011 study showed that 11.7 per cent of patrons travelled to Oakbank from overseas or interstate for this year's event, injecting more than $4.3 million in direct event expenditure. Irish Race Day, which displays Irish and Australian jumps jockeys, is the third largest attended event at Morphettville. The racing industry in this state contributes $273 million to gross state product, and so jumps racing's contribution is significant.

One final point is that an immediate ban on jumps racing would leave trainers with no choice but to humanely put down the horses. Surely this would lead to more horse fatalities than if they were left to continue racing. In summary, jumps racing in this state has a rich tradition. It is good for the economy and is an industry which, to the best of its ability, ensures the highest standards of animal welfare. While I fail to convince some, I urge all honourable members to reject the bill.

In closing, can I say that I have had discussions with the Hon. Tammy Franks on this particular bill. They have been respectful and I respect the Hon. Tammy Franks' position. I do not believe that the Hon. Tammy Franks is a zealot that hates all forms of racing. I do not believe that this is the start of her campaign to start with jumps racing, then go to flat racing, to pony clubs and equestrian events, but I do believe there are those in the community who actually think like that. It is a great tribute to our democracy that we can have debates in this place based on the merit of the argument and still treat each other with respect. I urge members to vote against this particular bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (22:20): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose this motion. Jumps racing is conducted in 19 countries, including Australia. There are 3,380 jumps races annually in Great Britain, 2,179 in France, and 1,394 in Ireland. Other countries include the US, Japan and New Zealand. A total of 19 race meetings were held throughout South Australia in 2010 at which 26 jumps races, in a mix of hurdles and steeple races, were conducted. In South Australia jumps racing events are held at Oakbank, Morphettville, Gawler, Mount Gambier and Murray Bridge. The Oakbank Racing Club was formed in 1875 and held its first Great Eastern Steeplechase the following year.

Most jumps racing participants are involved in flat racing as well, with the combination providing their wider employment, and it is therefore difficult to separate the two. Many leading trainers involved in flat racing have jumps horses in their stables to complement their income and provide connections with a viable option to continue the racing careers of their horses. As an example, those with jumps horses currently in their stables include trainers of the calibre of David Hayes, Eric Musgrove, Robbie Laing, Lee Freedman, Darren Weir, Robert Smerdon and Chris Hyland. Leading owners such as Lloyd Williams, who inject a large amount of capital investment into racehorse ownership and breeding, are also involved in jumps racing.

Many jumps jockeys work daily as track riders for trainers. There is a critical shortage of skilled track riders in South Australia, so these jumps jockeys provide a critical service to the industry. Without the opportunity to augment their income by riding in jumps racing, these skilled horsemen and women would be lost from the racing industry. It is also important to note that the jumps racing industry in South Australia and Victoria are intertwined, with owners, trainers and jockeys regularly travelling to various events in both states.

Statistically, horse fatalities in jumps racing are rare. As the Hon. Mr Stephens said, the official figures show that in 2010 fatalities were only 0.96 per cent of a total of 1,044 starters in jumps racing events that year. Thoroughbred Racing SA continues to do everything possible to ensure safety in the sport for riders and horses in jumps racing across the state. Two years ago Thoroughbred Racing SA appointed a jumps review panel comprising stewards, ex-jumping riders/trainers and a veterinary surgeon. This panel continually reviews all jumps events as part of Thoroughbred Racing SA's ongoing commitment to safety in the sport.

Every jumping race or trial at a South Australian racetrack, whether or not there is an incident, is reviewed by this panel, including the performance of horses, riders and the fences themselves. I will not cover the matter of the angle of hurdles in this state, because that has already been covered by the Hon. Mr Stephens.

South Australia's two best-attended race meetings of the year are the two days of the iconic Oakbank Easter carnival, which attracts more than 100,000 spectators over the two days. This is in contrast to the Oakbank twilight race meeting, which is not a jumps event and is held in December, which attracted only 3,000 people in December 2010. The event is famous around the world for its jumps racing and it continues to grow in popularity and importance to the state.

The 2010 event injected $57 million into the local and wider South Australian economy, an increase of over $10 million over 2009. The South Australian government is particularly aware of the tourism and economic benefits attributed to the ability of the racing industry to continue the program of jumps racing events. The positive economic impact on businesses within our tourism and recreational business sectors, from both local and interstate and international visitors to South Australia, is significant and cannot be underestimated.

The contribution of jumps racing should also be seen in the wider context of the entire South Australian racing industry. A 2004 study showed that the racing industry contributed $273 million each year to the gross state product, with almost 25,000 participants and 3,450 full time equivalent jobs. A ban on jumps racing in South Australia would have significant consequences in terms of the economy. Jumps racing is a very significant contributor to the South Australian economy.

The state government's two best-attended meetings of the year are at Oakbank, which inject tens of millions of dollars into the local and wider economy. It is worth noting that the South Australian taxpayers make no contribution through the state government to funding the Oakbank carnival. As I have previously alluded to, racing meetings are also held at Gawler, Mount Gambier and Murray Bridge, all of which are provincial clubs.

Every race meeting at which jump events are held is important to the ongoing viability of these courses. In terms of employment, jumps racing is a significant employer, not only on race days but also behind the scenes. Jockeys, trainers, strappers, vets and stable support staff would be among those whose livelihoods would be immediately put at peril. Socially, jumps racing has been a part of South Australia's racing for more than 170 years and is a vital part of the racing scene, particularly in regional South Australia.

It is a sport which brings families and communities together around racetracks in this state. Horses are naturally athletic animals, and trainers will tell you that many of the horses are natural jumpers and, very often, poorly suited to flat races. In fact, they will tell you that with such animals it is near impossible to stop them jumping. Jumps horses are thoroughbred animals and represent a significant investment. As such, they benefit from care; and attention to their diet, health, training and wellbeing is monitored at every step.

There are some risks to animal welfare in the sport of jumps racing, but this risk applies to all equestrian events in which horses are jumped, such as three-day events, dressage and endurance rides. Part 3 of the Animal Welfare Act defines what constitutes ill-treatment of animals, and no further refinement is necessary. The decision to continue jumps racing in South Australia rests with Thoroughbred Racing SA, the racing controlling authority for thoroughbred racing in this state. The view of the government is that the safety of riders and horses is obviously important, but it does not believe that jumps racing is cruel, and opposes this bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (22:29): I rise to speak to this bill and to indicate that I will be supporting it, but, before I go on any further, I would like to add something of an ad-lib response to comments made by the Hon. Mr Stephens. I note, first, that, of course, he made specific mention of the importance of respect in this debate, and indeed I consider that the Hon. Mr Stephens and I have always had a very amicable relationship, so these comments which I am about to make are very much off the cuff and are in no way intended as a personal attack. However, they occurred to me as I was listening to him speak and I felt that they are important to raise.

First, if I recall correctly, the Hon. Mr Stephens said that he is not interested in receiving 300 emails tomorrow morning—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: He said 3,000.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Well, the number is somewhat irrelevant, I think. He is not interested in receiving 3,000 emails tomorrow morning about his stance on jumps racing, but I would consider, to put it bluntly, that it is his job to receive those emails; and, indeed—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Can I say that, from South Australians, I am happy to take them; from people throughout the world, I'm not interested.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There will be no debating across the chamber.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Of course, we may not always come to the chamber representing exactly what is put in those emails or letters to us but, as parliamentarians, I believe that we do have a duty to carefully consider the opinions and the beliefs of the people of this state who we were elected to serve.

Whilst I would not wish to take that comment out of the spirit in which I am sure it was intended (which is a good one), I think that it is important that we remain mindful of that potential impact. Also, I mention the fact that the Hon. Mr Stephens uses members of the Liberal Party's own pets as examples of their commitments to animal welfare. Now, to a certain extent, that is very relevant. I have recently become the stepmother to Pickles, our three-legged cat—not quite biological but the mother of Kirby, the bitey, beautiful beagle. I think that it is important to note also that Kirby—who, yes, is named after Justice Michael Kirby—was adopted on the same day that the Hon. Mr Hunter adopted his beautiful dog, Zoe.

Whilst I would consider that my adoption of these animals is somewhat indicative of my commitment to animal welfare, I have always had goats, horses and dogs—all manner of pets—throughout my life, I do not consider that they are entirely indicative of my commitment to animal welfare as a whole. To me, using that argument is a bit like saying that, because I have been able to provide a good life for myself or a good life to those with disabilities who are immediately around me (my family members, some of my very best friends) that that should go far enough to demonstrate my commitment to the people with disabilities in this state, and I certainly do not believe that is the case, so I do not think that argument stands up to scrutiny. Anyway, my rant is complete.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley will be glad to know that my ad lib is henceforth complete. I am sure my advisers will also be very glad since I have diverted from the path of scripted righteousness, but I will now continue. I have thought long and hard about this bill, because I know that, while there may only be a few jumps racing professionals in our state, they are passionate about their industry. However, after a lot of thinking and consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is no valid reason for sacrificing horses in such great numbers and in such brutal ways; and, of course, I want to take a little time to explain to you how it is that I have reached this conclusion.

There can be no denying our society's close relationship with the horse. The extraordinary thing about that relationship is its ability to survive irrelevance during the past century. Since horses ceased to be useful for their original man-made purposes (since we have outmoded them with cars and tractors, for example) we have sought to artificially keep them in our lives. They have been pushed to the fringes as cities grow, but in Japan, for example, you will still find horses living in stable blocks on the 20th floor, and in Australia horses are almost alarmingly accessible. Although they are largely unnecessary in some senses, we have gone to considerable lengths to keep them around.

The industry most successful in reigniting the relevance of the horse is racing, which in Australia is by far the most economically worthwhile equestrian pursuit. However, while our original reason for supporting the racing industry may have been to maintain that strong bond between horses and people, we must now wonder if we have lost sight of that goal.

Is racing still about keeping horses in our lives, respecting and exercising their strength and beauty, or has it grown into a thing all of its own, where the punt and the dollar have eclipsed any thoughts of animal welfare and animal will? I think some of the flat racing practices we see in modern Australia are certainly questionable, but, given the context of this bill, my concerns about flat racing are nowhere near as urgent as my concerns about jumps racing.

I will not repeat the stats about jumps racing deaths, which the Hon. Tammy Franks recited when introducing the bill, nor will I list the states and territories in Australia which have already chosen to outlaw the so-called sport, because I do not think these facts are in dispute and they certainly have already been discussed. What seems to be in dispute in this debate is whether jumps racing horses are happy and whether the number of deaths and serious injuries the sport occasions are acceptable.

To me, the clear answer to this question is that the number of deaths and serious injuries is not acceptable. There is a difference between what you might call 'accidents', which happen in everyday sport, and what we see in jumps racing. While I in no way wish to imply that the deaths and injuries which occur in jumps racing are deliberate, I do not think they can be termed 'accidents' either. The deaths and injuries are an intrinsic part of jumps racing, and it is obvious that the sport cannot take place without injuries occurring.

We have seen various governing bodies in Australia attempt to alter the rules and regulations of jumps racing to stop these deaths, and it has not worked. This is because running and jumping in a pack is not natural or normal for horses and therefore will inevitably cause a problem when horses are made to perform this task. Jumps racing deaths and injuries are not accidents: they are an expected consequence of the sport's content. That, to me, is not acceptable. It is also not what I want our society's relationship with horses to be.

I believe that jumps racing represents a departure from a common-sense, ethical way of incorporating these animals into our lives, and so I believe it must stop. It seems that others are coming onside with this argument, most notably the Law Society, which last week acknowledged that jumps racing could well be considered illegal already. I hope that we can continue to strengthen our cause with this bill and that in the future we can again be proud of how we keep horses relevant in modern culture, relevant in our lives and therefore relevant in their own.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The gallery will come to order, otherwise I will have to have you jumped clean out of the place. The Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (22:38): As alluded to by some previous speakers in connection with the quantity of contacts coming into our electorate offices through the email system, emotions are running high on both sides of this debate, so I believe it is important to take a step back and examine this issue in an objective and factual manner, or as factually as we possibly can.

Jumps races are very different to flat horse races—that stands as unquestionable. Jumps races are endurance events for both horse and jockey, run over much longer distances than flat races. Jumps races can be up to five kilometres long, compared with the average 1.5-kilometre flat race. In hurdles, horses jump lightweight frame fences with brush tops, and in steeplechases horses jump higher, more solid obstacles.

Jumps racing jockeys are generally heavier than flat-race jockeys and often have less experience. Jumps horses are typically horses that have been bred for flat racing, trained to run at full speed, but have proven too slow to win on the flat as, obviously, the Hon. Mr Stephens and, indeed, you, sir, have experienced many times. Those old, slow nags just do not return.

Over the last 20 years, there have been more than a dozen reviews on jumps racing in Australia. In 1991, the federal parliament's Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare found there was an inherent conflict between jumps racing and animal welfare which could not be eliminated by education, training or alterations to the height or placement of hurdles.

Accordingly, that committee recommended that state governments should phase out jumps racing completely by 1994. I note that South Australia and Victoria are now the only states in the country to allow jumps racing. Jumps racing ended in Queensland over 100 years ago, 70 years ago in Western Australia, 14 years ago in New South Wales and four years ago in Tasmania.

It is interesting to note that while the South Australian parliament debates this bill, the Victorian government has recently reconfirmed its support of the industry. The Victorian government has pledged $8.85 million towards jumps racing prize money and announced a $2 million funding package that will go towards the purchasing of new jumping obstacles.

The pro jumps racing camp offer a number of key arguments in support of the sport. Supporters of jumps racing maintain that the sport continues to enjoy strong community support. The racing industry claims this public support is evident in the healthy betting turnover for hurdle and steeplechase events.

I note, however, that the long-term trend is for punters to bet 30 to 40 per cent less on jumps races compared to flat races. This was certainly the case on 4 July 2011 at the Morphettville races when the TAB turnover for the Grand National Steeplechase was 34 per cent lower than the flat race that preceded it and 30 per cent lower than the flat race that followed it.

I note that in May 2011, the Grand Annual Steeplechase run in Warrnambool generated $196,000 in bets, compared to the Warrnambool Cup flat race held later that day, which generated over $1 million in bets. It comes as little surprise then to discover that jumps racing accounts for less than 0.7 per cent of all racing turnover.

I am also aware that the overwhelming majority of owners in jumps racing make a loss financially on those races, and in most cases the prize money is not even enough to cover the cost of training. One wonders why they do it. Therefore, the argument that jumps racing is needed in South Australia to support our economy is kind of weak.

Supporters of jumps racing argue that without a jumps racing industry to fall back on, the many horses that do not make the grade for flat racing would be sent to the slaughterhouse. Pro jumps racing groups believe the industry saves these slower horses from premature death. I note, however, that critics of jumps racing dispute this and claim that the horses usually end up at the slaughterhouse regardless, with most jumps racing horses running in five or fewer races in their short career.

Despite calls to ban this sport due to animal welfare concerns, jumps racing supporters firmly believe that horses actually enjoy jumping obstacles because it is something they were born to do, but experts such as the University of Sydney's Dr Paul McGreevy disagree. Dr McGreevy argues that in the wild, horses jump only when they need to do so; that is, if they are being chased and they have to go over a fallen tree, fence or some other obstacle. They are, after all, a prey animal. Dr McGreevy argues that in the wild, horses will generally go around an object if they can and jump only when necessary.

The University of Kentucky's equine expert, Dr Thomas Tobin, maintains that the bone structure of a horse is not designed to jump obstacles for extended periods of time, and that long periods of sustained jumping will significantly increase the risk of a horse breaking bones. Whether it is a natural inclination for horses to jump or not, there is no disputing the statistics that reveal that jumps horses face an increased risk of injury and death compared to horses run on the flat.

A study published in 2006 in the Equine Veterinary Journal looked into the risk of fatality and causes of death of thoroughbred horses associated with racing in Victoria. The study reviewed data taken over a 15-year period and found that on average 13 horses a year died in jumps races, and that the risk of horses dying in jumps races was almost 19 times higher than in flat races.

This figure is consistent with other Australian studies and certainly reflects the 2011 statistics so far. Already this year we have seen seven horses die in Australia due to their involvement in jumps racing. I note that the number of horses that have died away from the track due to injuries related to the sport, such as training and trials accidents, are unknown.

Thoroughbred Racing South Australia recognises that the sport is not without risk for the horse or jockey but argues that the fatality rate of horses is relatively low. In recent years, Thoroughbred Racing South Australia has taken steps to minimise the risk of injury and death of horses. For instance, in 2002, they changed the jumps to a hedge top to allow horses to brush through the jumps, placed wings on the side of the jumps to make them more visible to the horses, changed the angle of the obstacles and made the jumps themselves half a metre higher, to slow the horses down during the race. But despite these modifications, horses are still dying.

It is not only the welfare of animals that should be considered when discussing this issue; the occupational health and safety of jockeys in their workplace is also an important matter. It is my understanding that jumps racing jockeys have a fall rate 12.5 times higher than their flat-racing counterparts, and jumps jockeys can expect to fall every 19 rides, on average.

A study conducted by the Menzies Research Institute in Tasmania, published in The Medical Journal of Australia in 2009, concluded that jockeys fall at a rate of 0.42 per cent in flat racing and 5.26 per cent in jumps racing. Although most falls occurred pre or post race, falls occurring during the race resulted in the most severe injuries. The study found that in jumps racing jockeys typically fall as the horse tries to clear a jump, with nearly 10 per cent of fallen jockeys transported to hospital or declared unfit to ride.

In summary, while I will not be voting in support of this motion at this point in time, I think the jumps racing industry should really try to engage with the facts and not try to brush these concerns under the carpet. I note just today in The Advertiser a small story by Sarah Martin that jumps racing is bad for the industry, where Mr Steve Ploubidis says:

The argument is weak. Flat racing would not miss jumps racing. It's not popular with the public or the punter.

He should know something about the racing industry. It continues:

'Jumps racing...is a significant contributor in terms of employment and economic benefits,' the industry says.

The facts do not uphold that statement one little bit.

The justifications are weak and they are repudiated by the data and the facts. They do themselves no favours by disingenuously refuting the valid concerns raised in this motion, with no real evidence to back their claims and often in blatant contradiction of the facts. I urge the government to keep an eye on this issue and this industry, for it seems to me that it is not an industry that wants to grapple with the reality of its negatives.

For a start, if the jumps industry were serious, it would move to shorten the jumps races to being equal to flat racing in length and reduce the number of jumps accordingly, and it would have the same weight requirements for jockeys as flat racing. That would be a start. That would show that the industry is serious in addressing the very real problems inherent in jumps racing. If it does not, it should not be surprised if this parliament is again debating a bill to ban their industry some time in the future.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (22:47): I rise to indicate my support for the Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I will apologise to the Hon. Mark Parnell straight up for upsetting that balance that was so short-lived that he spoke of earlier.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: 'The natural order; the planets are aligned.' Each time the news covers another horse falling as it crashes over the jump, often landing head first, before cartwheeling, I cringe, and I wonder how we can allow such gruesome deaths to occur in the name of sport and entertainment. It is a most harrowing spectacle we endure all too frequently during the jumps racing season.

Not only do we see the South Australian deaths—some five, I believe, this year received coverage—but the six from Victoria are also brought into our homes via the news. I am sure few of those behind the thousands of emails, calls and letters my office has received have recently attended a jumps race. Like me, their experience is through the horror of the news. I believe it is time for this state to join all but one of its counterparts who have successfully banned jumps racing.

As has been detailed, jumps racing has never gained a foothold in Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. Queensland was the first to ban jumps racing in 1903. Following the Senate select committee in 1991, which recommended phasing out jumps racing over three years, New South Wales made jumps racing a criminal offence in 1997. Then in Tasmania, due to lack of popularity of the sport and the horror of the carnage, jumps racing ceased in 2007. Now only Victoria and South Australia remain.

South Australia very nearly stood alone when the Victorian minister, following the public outrage at the death of three jumps horses at the Warrnambool racing carnival, suspended jumps racing in that state in May 2009. The sport was allowed to resume after supposedly strict conditions were imposed. As has been demonstrated time and again, these conditions failed to significantly reduce the death toll, with a further five horses dying by the season's end.

As a result, Racing Victoria then announced, to the delight of those who brought the cruelty of this sport to the fore, that the 2010 season would be the last for Victoria. Their joy did not last long, however, and just seven weeks later Racing Victoria bowed to industry pressure and permitted the sport to continue provided certain key performance indicators (a euphemism for the number of falls and deaths) were met. Of course, they were not but, given the influence involved in this sport, jumps racing continues. But for this influence and for Racing Victoria's lack of integrity to see through its commitments to the Victorian public, South Australia would have been alone in allowing this sport to continue. I call it a sport very lightly.

I accept that jumps racing is a small part of the South Australian horse racing sector, with only 24 trainers practising the sport, nearly a quarter of whom are described as hobby trainers with few horses in their stables, and a quarter who, whilst registered, have not entered a horse in a South Australian race. Further, it can only be described as unprofitable, given the limited prize money on offer, particularly if restricted to South Australian only events. From information provided to my office by the Hon. Tammy Franks, only seven of the 20 trainers took home any winnings in the 2010 season—that is, 13 won nothing.

Jumps racing also accounts for less than 1 per cent, I believe, of racing turnover, and the amounts wagered on jumps events is consistently lower than its flat racing counterpart, as already mentioned. A fact highlighted by Colin Thomas, the spokesperson for Citizens against Animal Cruelty, was that TAB figures showed that betting for this year's National Steeplechase at Adelaide's Morphettville Racecourse fell 34 per cent from the flat race that preceded it, before again rising 30 per cent for the flat race that followed. Mr Thomas concluded in an article in The Australian that:

TAB figures show that punters don't share the same delight about jumps racing that racing administrators do.

It is hard not to agree with him. Punters are clearly voting with their wallets. It is time that we, too, voted. Given the Law Society's advice, the government can no longer hide behind the suggestion that this is a matter solely for Thoroughbred Racing SA and cannot be legislated for. While this has always been plainly false to members, it is now also clear to the public.

While I do not consider them entirely comparable, it is time that jumps racing went the way of dog fighting and cock fighting and is specifically prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act. I do not consider this is a question of if but rather when. Given that it is clear that it will not be today, I encourage the industry to work towards a date of its choosing before public pressure becomes too great and members in this place and the other place take that choice away from them.

Occupational health and safety issues are of paramount importance, apparently, to this government, and I believe that should have been one of the main considerations in determining whether this bill was to have any serious consideration or not. I remind members here that it is a relatively short time ago that we used to think that it was okay—or humanity used to think it was okay—to tie up black people and get them to pull ploughs and whatever through the fields, and whip them and consider them to be less than human.

We evolve. We change. We become more respectful and we become more demanding of ethical conduct. People are demanding that governments take ethical stands on certain issues. I believe that jumps racing is one of those issues. I congratulate the Hon. Tammy Franks on bringing this bill to us and opening up this debate. I also congratulate the Hon. Ian Hunter on his contribution. Even though he is unable to vote for this bill, he has made it clear that he, too, is not in favour of this particular abomination of sport.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:55): I rise today to speak about the Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill 2011, which was introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks to ban jumps racing in South Australia. I understand this is a highly emotive issue, with passionate arguments coming from both sides. However, I would like to highlight the fact that from information provided to me it seems that data can be manipulated so as to portray arguments both for and against in a positive light.

For example, there is an argument from the anti-jumps racing camp that jumps racing comprises less than 2 per cent of the South Australian horseracing industry and, therefore, banning jumps racing would have little impact on the economy. Further reinforcing the insignificance of industry is the fact that there are no full-time jumps racing trainers, stables, or jockeys in South Australia.

Thoroughbred Racing South Australia has no argument with the fact that there are no full-time jumps racing employees. However, they qualify this by stating that many trainers' stables and jockeys that are involved in flat racing are also involved in jumps racing. Further to this, they argue that jumps racing plays an integral part of supplementing flat racing both financially and by giving trainers and jockeys the opportunity of augmenting their income, particularly those jockeys who are unable to contain their riding weight to a level suitable for flat racing.

Thoroughbred Racing South Australia states that in five racing seasons (up to 2010) 0.96 per cent of starters in jumps races in South Australia died. This percentage seems quite insignificant, however. Dr Lisa Bowden from the University of Melbourne found that there is a fatality for every 115 horses that started in a race from 1989 to 2004. The periods used to calculate these fatalities are different, and it is therefore difficult to make a comparison. Further, it is not known whether any changes were made to jumps racing from 1989 to 2005 which may have improved or reduced the fatality rates.

The economic impact of jumps racing is difficult to interpret, too. Anti-jumps racing supporters highlight that only 16 per cent of the prize money offered by South Australian sponsors and clubs is won by South Australians. In other words, only 16 per cent of South Australian prize moneys remain in the state. However, when discussing the economic impact of jumps racing, Thoroughbred Racing South Australia discusses the attendance numbers at jumps race meetings, the most famous being the Oakbank Easter Carnival, which was reported to have injected $57 million into South Australia's economy in 2010.

Again, without comparing apples with apples, it is difficult to determine which argument holds more weight. The only consistency between the arguments from both sides is the regrettable fact that it is accepted that if jumps racing were banned more horses involved in the industry would be destroyed. This would be an unfortunate consequence of the ban; however, those who support a ban suggest that jumps horses could be utilised in high weight racing. I do not know much about this, but to me this option seems unlikely.

As demonstrated by the facts presented, it is difficult to ascertain which side's argument holds the most weight. Both have valid points, and proponents for both sides undoubtedly feel very passionately about the issue. In consideration of these issues, I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (22:58): In summary, I would like to thank those members who have made a contribution this evening and put some time and thought into those contributions: the Hons Gerry Kandelaars, Terry Stephens, Kelly Vincent, Anne Bressington and John Darley, and, in particular, the Hon. Ian Hunter. I do thank you for certainly, as you said, not only bringing some facts into this debate but also displaying your conscience and bringing your intellect into this debate.

While I am disappointed that you will not be crossing the floor, I do hope that you are true to your word and that the debate that you have put up today here in this chamber is also undertaken in your caucus room. I would hope that the Labor Party caucus seriously has a look at the industry of jumps racing. I reiterate that the bill before us is not a slippery slope, and it is not a subterfuge that would lead to other parts of the industry being banned. It has nothing to do with pony clubs or equestrian events in general. All of those are furphies and deserve to be treated as such. I thank the Hon. Terry Stephens for acknowledging that he does not impute my intent in moving this bill here today.

It has been almost universally accepted in everyone's contribution that the jumps racing part of this industry is, in fact, a very small part of the industry here in South Australia. People have talked of its rich history, but I would just say that it does not have a very bright future.

Those who are still engaged in this part of the industry are indeed passionate about their industry, and they will go to great lengths, no doubt, to preserve and protect what they hold dear. However, they are dwindling in number and they are dwindling in power. There is only a small number of those involved in the jumps part of this industry in South Australia.

Also, South Australia is certainly propping up the Victorian industry when it comes to any talk of economic impact for this state. In fact, of the $942,000 in prize money, South Australian trainers have received only 25 per cent in recent times. So, talk of it being such a boon for our economy is a misunderstanding; in fact, we are subsidising other states, such as Victoria, with our support of the industry in this state, as well as bringing in the international components.

For those who believe that Oakbank would falter with the loss of jumps racing, I would say that I do not think that, by and large, people go to Oakbank specifically because there are jumps races in that program. They go to Oakbank because it is a long weekend and it is a picnic race.

The Melbourne Cup used to include a jumps race as part of its program. In 2001, a horse called 'He's Back on Track' was killed during a jumps race, and the following year they discontinued running that jumps race.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No. I think the Melbourne Cup is probably a shining example in the racing industry of how to create a successful event. I do not think the Oakbank racing carnival would not necessarily see the Melbourne Cup as a good way forward in terms of a business model.

I draw members' attention to a letter I circulated to them, which was covered in The Advertiser, from the former CEO of the SAJC, Mr Steve Ploubidis. Mr Hunter has covered some of the letter, so I will not go over that ground again. In that letter, Mr Ploubidis certainly does not mince his words. He states:

Jumps racing advocates have again peddled lies to you in this instance to support jumps racing. Here are the facts.

Only a very small minority own jumps horses.

Most trainers would rather see an end to jumps racing.

You will note that during the jumps season, jumps races are always programmed at the beginning of the day because the general punter is not at the TAB as yet and they do not bet on jumps racing anyway. It's like prime time TV, you don't have your worst programs on at prime time and your best on at midnight to dawn!

Betting turnover is the lowest on jumps racing off course (TABs) and on course (at the track, that's why they're usually...[in the early parts of race day]

Mr Ploubidis then discussed the claims made by the new SAJC CEO, Mr Jim Waters, and suggests that his comments are playing a political line with regard to the contribution of jumps racing to the racing industry and to the economy in general. I draw members' attention to these claims because they were canvassed in the debate tonight. Mr Ploubidis says that Mr Waters' claims are definitely in need of some serious critical scrutiny. If, as it is said, racing in general attracts more than 500,000 people, Mr Ploubidis says:

Where are they? It's been a standard joke in the industry that clubs should use the 'Oakbank gate counters'. They seem to click their clickers twice for every person that walks in! The gate income never matches attendances. The truth is that what is reported as being the total attendance over two days is probably overstated by 40-50%.

Let's do the maths. The SAJC runs 65 meetings per year. The major race days are Adelaide Cup, Melbourne Cup, Irish Day, Twilight and other themed days, etc., with a combined crowd estimated at around 60,000. An average attendance for the other, say, 55 meetings, is 1,500 per meeting (and even that is overstated). That means the combined attendance of the SAJC over 12 months is around 80,000. Therefore the total is approximately 150,000 people in a full year. There wouldn't be more than 20-30 individual jumps races all season.

Mr Waters' figure of 500,000 people attending jumps racing is clearly grossly exaggerated. Even the four days of the Melbourne Cup week at Flemington doesn't attract that many! Jumps racing in SA at all other racetracks, (excluding Oakbank) would not attract more than 10,000 people p.a., and that's being deliriously generous. Throw in Oakbank and you are up to 60,000-70,000 and that's using Oakbank counters!

The claim that racing supports 3,500 jobs Mr Ploubidis says is 'simply fantasy':

The SA jumps industry such as it is, relies on paying interstate or overseas owners/trainers such as Eric Musgrove and John Wheeler appearance money to bring their horses over. Without them, there would simply not be enough horses in SA to sustain a jumps industry, particularly Oakbank. Secondly, there are also not enough jumps jockeys in SA. Without paying interstate jumps jockeys to come over SA would simply not have enough riders.

Mr Waters clearly fails to substantiate his claims.

The suggestions that racing contributes up to $300 million into the SA economy is also claimed by Mr Ploubidis to be 'fanciful and wishful thinking'. He says:

In general, jumps horses come from flat racing horses at the end of their careers. It's a way for owners to attempt to recoup some of their investment.

He describes it as:

…like an ageing AFL player getting sacked and then rolling up to an SANFL club to squeeze the last bit of juice out of the lemon. That's not to say that there aren't genuine jumps trainers and horses, but very, very few indeed.

Mr Ploubidis says:

…flats racing would not miss jumps racing. It's not popular with the public or the punter.

Whatever people might care to say about Mr Ploubidis and how he is regarded by the industry, you cannot say he has not been an industry insider.

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In summary, I have found the experience of this bill quite an interesting one because, as some members would be aware, I actually attended several of the days which had jumps racing as part of their racing programs. On one of those occasions, when I went to take a photograph at Morphettville I was in fact escorted from the race track for daring to try to photograph a jumps race.

I find this an unusual reaction from an industry that says it has nothing to hide. The lengths that this industry is currently going to to ensure that photographs and footage are never taken of a jumps race in this state I would say do not do their cause any good. Certainly I would support the Hon. Ann Bressington in her call for maybe the industry to start to look at its exit plan.

On that note, of course this bill has enabled the provision of legal advice from the Law Society, and I do thank them for the work that they have put into that legal advice. As members would also be aware, it has made the revelation that in fact jumps racing is possibly already in contravention of subsections 13(1) and 13(2) of the current Animal Welfare Act. I draw members' attention to that and the fact that the bill we are now voting on was actually said by the Law Society probably to be redundant but certainly useful in clarifying the law and making sure that we are not going to open up what I would call a can of worms, to continue the animal analogies in this debate. Certainly I would caution minister Tom Kenyon from continuing to say that this industry is beyond the parliament's powers. Certainly this parliament, as the Law Society has now advised, has every ability to legislate with regard to the racing industry and to legislate to ban jumps racing in this state.

With that, as I say, I look forward to the Labor caucus perhaps discussing this issue and certainly having an informed and factual debate. Given the legal implications that the bill not being voted up tonight has in terms of potential legal challenges from the RSPCA or other groups, I would say that the state government may well in fact be facing its own version (an animal welfare version) of the Malaysian solution where they are to be found in contravention of existing laws if they do not take this issue up.

As a society, we no longer condone or accept animal cruelty as a legitimate form of entertainment. The thousands of emails, while all of them may not have come from South Australians, I can assure you many of them did. I can assure you that they were not computer generated. They were real people at the end of those emails, and they are real people in the gallery tonight who have come to hear this debate.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This parliament tonight clearly does not have the fortitude to pass this bill. The courts may have to lead the way. Either way, I believe jumps racing has now reached its final hurdle. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber.

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order! No wonder they escort you off the racecourse if your behaviour is like that all the time.

The council divided on the second reading:

AYES (4)
Bressington, A. Franks, T.A. (teller) Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L.
NOES (17)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. (teller) Kandelaars, G.A.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 13 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

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