HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Animal Welfare (Live Baiting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 May 2015.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:15): Today, I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare (Live Baiting) Amendment Bill. The Greens welcome this legislation; indeed, we welcome any reforms to improve animal welfare outcomes in this state and to strengthen laws to prevent, in this case, live baiting in South Australia.

Of course, many of us saw or heard the news reports of the sickening footage on the ABC Four Corners program Making a Killing. That footage was, of course, the result of the work of groups such as Animals Australia and Animal Liberation Queensland and their investigation to expose the illegal practice of live baiting at trial tracks in New South Wales. Many were shocked to see quite high profile people within the greyhound industry implicated in these practices. The footage showed possums, rabbits and even a piglet being mauled to death at greyhound training facilities. Clearly, the industry, in some parts of this country at the very least, has a very dark underbelly.

Whilst Greyhound Racing South Australia has said that there is no evidence to suggest that this is happening in our state, we must take all steps to ensure that it does not happen in our state. I would note that, prior to that Four Corners episode, we were told interstate that it was not happening there, either. The Greens are supportive of any legislation to address this topic of live baiting but, as I will cover later in my speech, we also believe that this is just a first step.

Speaking of the Four Corners episode, I note the importance of this exposé in that we need strong current affairs programs. Had it not been for the Four Corners exposé, this horrific animal abuse would be continuing now, unknown and unaddressed. It needs to be labelled a national disgrace, and assurances made by the greyhound industry that it will do everything in its power to ensure that sick practices, such as live baiting, will not continue need to be called to account and held to account.

Reports like this from the media, the fourth estate of our democracy, are something we do not see enough of in 2015, with these days of a shrinking news room, shrinking budgets and, indeed, the relentlessness of the 24-hour news cycle and the five second sound grab. Programs such as Four Corners are essential for giving voice to the voiceless. We have seen Four Corners do it on many, many areas of animal welfare—and, to their credit, this week we have seen their report on the slave labour that we are seeing, to our shame, in our country.

I must also commend the work particularly of John Kaye, a Greens MLC in New South Wales, who has long campaigned to expose the unethical practices and animal cruelty in the greyhound industry, particularly in New South Wales. He is a longstanding campaigner on these issues, and he was involved in the inquiry a few years back in the New South Wales parliament and the author of the dissenting minority report on that inquiry.

Also, around the country, in Tasmania we have seen Cassy O'Connor step up on this issue and, with the cross-party support of her Tasmanian parliamentarian colleagues, establish a select committee to inquire into, report and make recommendations about the Tasmanian greyhound racing industry. The inquiry there will consider live baiting, but it will also consider the issue of 'wastage' (the killing of dogs) and 'draining' (the draining of blood from a dog before it is euthanased). We are not doing that in this state at this stage, but the Greens flag that particularly those issues of wastage and draining should be at the forefront of further work in this area.

The bill that we have in front of us has been pulled together by the minister in conjunction with Greyhound Racing South Australia and the RSPCA to come to an agreement and a consensus position. I understand, from the briefing provided by the minister's office on this bill, that it has been quite a positive and productive process of working together. The bill creates new offences relating to taking part in or being present at a prohibited activity and introduces a new category of live baiting to the existing categories, such as cockfighting and dogfighting.

The bill also increases the penalties for organising or promoting an animal fight from $20,000 or two years imprisonment to $50,000 or four years imprisonment. The Greens believe this is appropriate and reflects the fact that the community has no tolerance for these acts. Indeed, these acts have no place in a civilised society. We are also pleased to see section 14A expanded to make being in possession of a lure with a live or dead animal or part thereof an offence.

We have done some extensive stakeholder consultation on this bill, but we have much more to do. In the short time that we have had to talk to the relevant stakeholders, beyond those that the government consulted with, being the RSPCA and Greyhound Racing SA, we have spoken to many groups and I want to put some of their concerns and their support on the record today. The first is the Friends of the Hound Incorporated Greyhound Adoption Group. The president, Lisa White, writes:

From the outset, we maintain that the nature of this industry—using dogs for a large-scale commercial betting platform, on the economic basis of state wagering revenue and profits for participants, forms an unethical foundation to which problems of regulation, compliance and corruption, along with over-breeding, wastage and other animal welfare problems, are interminable issues…

She goes on to say:

…it would be remiss to believe that this behaviour is limited to 'a few bad apples'. It has been obvious to many welfare groups and concerned individuals for many years that there are inherent problems with Greyhound racing, including live-baiting, and yet the controlling bodies have chosen to deny its existence, through apparent lack of evidence, and in doing so, have proven their incompetence or insouciance to effectively regulate the industry. There are many people (both within the industry and in the community) that believe the controlling bodies [in New South Wales] did know or suspect but did not act. A common theme heard amongst the community is that live-baiting has always happened and is common practice.

…The crimes of live-baiting are not the only problem in Greyhound racing. To many people, commercial dog racing and the negative consequences for the dogs, is a crime in itself. Every year the Greyhound racing industry breeds nearly 20,000 Greyhounds for racing and gambling. It is a breeding lottery for the fastest dog. The only possible outcome for this continual over-breeding is an early death for most of the dogs. This exploitation and routine killing is reason enough for an end to this industry.

…Wastage, mass graves, live-baiting, doping…—this industry does not reflect the values of today's society.

…Leading trainers and industry officials across three states have been implicated. With perpetrators of this callous and criminal 'blooding' of dogs holding the status of 'Greyhound Trainer of the Year', people are right to wonder if the success of a racing dog comes down to the criminality of its trainer.

In an organisation dependent on commercial gain and profitable outcomes, regulatory functions are compromised due to a conflict of interest with commercial performance. For this reason controlling bodies responsible for both commercial and regulatory functions of Greyhound racing are not effective in carrying out both roles, serving to undermine the transparency and accountability required and expected. The Greyhound racing industry should not be permitted to self-govern and should not have the responsibility of regulatory control. Issues regarding transparency and accountability stem from ineffectual oversight and the obvious consequence is poor animal welfare outcomes.

…This is an industry that claims to be made up mostly of hobbyists—that then states employment as a justification for its existence; an industry that believes it is beyond social and market forces, and above the law; an industry that exhibits an arrogant attitude about its long-time protection and support from the government,—

And I note there that she is referring to the New South Wales government—

based on economic reasons. Like other iconic Aussie organisations that once flourished but have hit an economic and social wall impeding their continuation due to market demand and customer perceptions, the Greyhound racing industry should face its challenges and decline without legislative provisions and without government support. It is time to let it go.

Integrity is long gone, and the rot is embedded at all levels. The stain from the mix of animals, racing, gambling and greed has festered and spread.

In relation to regulatory functions and animal welfare, it is not possible to have effective regulation without transparency and independent scrutiny. It is also not possible to carry out effective monitoring, management and regulation to uphold welfare obligations without adequate resources, funds and personnel. The responsibility is a mammoth task, and one beyond the capabilities of the current controllers—or any other body or inspectorate. The ability of the industry to conduct regular and efficient inspections of all participants' properties and activities, and enforce penalties that ensure compliance by its members, may never be attained.

Minimum standards and Codes of Practice are only worth implementing if they contain adequate welfare principles at their core, teamed with sufficient enforcement and regulation. This is a culture that exists by exploiting animals for commercial gain with a history of complacency in regard to the stringency of regulations and welfare initiatives. The resources, time and money required to adequately monitor or police these properties and participants, with regular kennel inspections (not ineffectively carried out once every 2 years!) and the necessary random follow-up checks—is unfeasible.

Puppy farming has gained much focus around Australia as a major animal welfare concern with many key animal welfare groups and government representatives advocating the abolition of puppy mills. Yet, the Greyhound racing industry is the largest group of puppy farmers in the country—seeking to profit from the over-breeding of these dogs—and the breeding and killing of Greyhounds continues unchecked.

The past decade has seen concentrated effort and emphasis from grassroots volunteer Greyhound rescue groups and animal welfare organisations in Australia and around the world, in educating people and creating awareness about the plight of Greyhounds, and bearing the responsibility and heartbreak of cleaning up after an industry that routinely discards and kills these dogs. There has been a significant shift in attitude about the breed and about Greyhound racing.

Decades of racing promotion, seeing the muzzled and thinking of them only as those fast dogs that chase things definitely produced a stigma about Greyhounds, which benefited the racing industry in preventing a public outcry. Now however, years of rescue, rehoming and promotion and assimilating them into the community has dispelled many of the misconceptions and has resulted in an increase in rehoming opportunities, and greater opposition to the industry.

We received a phone call from a local lady in her 70s who had been involved in racing for decades and had apparently been a leading trainer in South Australia. Her colleagues had asked her to call to 'sort us out' and a lengthy conversation ensued, in which our issues with mass wastage of Greyhounds due to the racing industry were explained. She maintained that the dogs are 'bred to do a job' and revealed that she had 'probably put to sleep about 300 in her time.' 300 dogs killed by one hobbyist in her pursuit of pleasure, through involvement in a profit-driven gambling industry!

Caught up in this culture of oversupply and wastage are the veterinarians and universities who present a means to an end to Greyhound racing people, at least to those willing to pay, by providing an easy disposal of the dogs. Vets are killing thousands of healthy, young Greyhounds every year, and Universities are using and killing hundreds of Greyhounds every year for veterinary science training and experimentation, taking the stance that it is better to put the dogs to sleep humanely than a cruel alternative. Justification for their actions is based on the presumption that a dog is going to die anyway and may suffer a more brutal or inhumane death if they do not perform this service. A veterinarian's charter is to relieve animal pain and suffering but all too often Vet clinics are accepting payment for killing a healthy, young animal that is of no further commercial use 'in case' another method might be used or because the Greyhound will likely be killed anyway.

Prioritising humane euthanasia as a solution to welfare problems is not sufficient…There is nothing kind nor compassionate about killing a healthy, young dog simply because it is no longer useful for making one money in a commercial racing and gambling industry.

Australia is one of only 8 countries in the world where dog racing exists. Greyhound racing in the United States now occurs in only seven states. It has been banned in South Africa, it is facing opposition in the United Kingdom. The global decline in popularity and acceptance of this so-called sport will impact the industry's future here.

The greyhound racing industry in Australia is made up of around 30,000 people, killing up to 18,000 dogs annually; a minority of people responsible for major carnage for a small percentage of wagering revenue.

The use of animals in entertainment and sport, where their well-being and safety is at risk, is at odds with the changing values of modern society. Australians are fast becoming aware that around 20,000 greyhounds are bred every year, only to be killed when no longer a viable asset to the racing owner or trainer. They are learning that there are countless injuries and even deaths suffered on the track by these poor dogs, and that just under half the dogs bred never even make it to the track.

Dogs are one of the world's most favoured companion animals. It is unreasonable and rather arrogant to expect that the Australian public should not be concerned about the breeding of nearly 20,000 of one breed of dog every year for gambling, with just under half of those actually making it to the track, and where the only possible outcome for the majority of them is an early death.

…humans have long given themselves rights and privileges over other species. The use of animals is generally balanced against human benefit. Animal exploitation for the purpose of gambling has a fragile moral claim. Given that the greyhound industry requires large-scale disposal of dogs each year, the industry has a rather questionable claim on validity. It will come down to numbers: the number of dogs bred, which subsequently render this a dog killing industry; the number of greyhounds that are still being exported to Asian countries with no animal welfare laws; the relatively small minority of active participants actually engaged in this sport; the amount of government spending (taxpayer dollars) to prop up this code of racing; the high rate of injuries sustained by the animals providing this product; the amount of doping incidents; prohibitive cost and lack of funds for eradicating the misuse of these illegal and performance enhancing drugs; the numbers involved in live baiting and the fact that the industry has allowed it to continue; the numbers within the industry revealing dissatisfaction and causing conflict regarding administration mismanagement, poor governance, corruption and lack of profit share; and, the number of people who oppose the greyhound racing industry and seek an end to dog racing in Australia.

Even with tighter regulations and improved governance, we feel the industry would still present serious ethical and moral issues. Greyhound racing must end. The question is: how many dogs do YOU believe it is justified to breed, exploit and kill for gambling/wagering?

So ends that particular submission. My office also received a submission from World Animal Protection, who would like it placed on the record that they are opposed to the use of animals in entertainment and therefore do not support greyhound racing. They say:

As currently practised the 'sport' of greyhound racing is detrimental to the welfare of the animals involved.

Animals Australia corresponded with my office to say that they strongly support any legislation that will improve animal welfare outcomes for greyhounds and therefore are supportive of the measures in this bill. They write:

We strongly support the introduction of offences for live coursing, selling an animal for live bait and training or exercising a dog without a licence. We believe that these are all positive steps towards reducing the likelihood of severely cruel practices like live baiting occurring.

They continue:

…real change will only occur if these laws and regulations are policed and enforced effectively. As the current framework is largely self regulated by industry, it would be beneficial to tighten these obligations by introducing things such as compulsory auditing, thorough investigations by the authorities when complaints are received, and enforcement of penalties when breaches are detected.

The Animal Law Institute corresponded with my office, saying that they were similarly supportive of efforts to:

…further criminalise live baiting and regulate the greyhound racing industry to ensure individuals are deterred from engaging in the activity and are appropriately punished when it is detected.

They continue:

One of the biggest issues in the greyhound racing industry in all states of Australia, including South Australia, is the fact that the industry is largely self regulated. This creates a number of problems in terms of effective enforcement, including the increased difficulties in policing those involved in the industry and ensuring enforcement of the laws and regulations occurs.

When I initially corresponded with most of those groups—and some are still coming in with their submissions—it was, of course, originally with regard to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill as well, so certainly many of the words in support of her bill are echoed in support of the government bill.

Once again, the Greens congratulate the government for taking this swift action by working with both the industry and the RSPCA in preparing this legislation. We also commend the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has brought a piece of legislation to this council preceding the government's bill. However, it is clear that the scope of this legislation is only the beginning. This is one step forward, but it is not the only step that we need to take to ensure that the serious ethical issues that remain for this industry, including the immense levels of wastage, are addressed. With that I commend the bill to the council

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.

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