- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 6 May 2005
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 35 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 15869
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr IAN COHEN [3.13 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill. The bill contains a number of reforms designed to promote animal welfare and to bring the New South Wales Act in line with other States. The Greens are in favour of legislation aimed at improving animal welfare. Every day in Australia thousands of animals are harmed in incalculable ways, including being shot, beaten, tortured, starved and imprisoned. We intensively farm animals, eat them, wear them, hunt them, race them, experiment on them and make them perform for us. Animals cannot stand up for themselves; they rely on us for protection. The Greens welcome moves that increase the levels of protection afforded to animals.
The bill aims to extend officers' powers and will improve enforcement and compliance powers when matters come before courts. I support amendments intended to improve enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. An amendment in the bill gives police officers power to stop and inspect vehicles. This provision may be used, for example, in the case of livestock transportation where the animals have not been given adequate food, water or shelter. A further amendment extends the definition of premises to include vehicles so that officers and inspectors may be able to forcibly enter a vehicle if they suspect cruelty to animals. This provision can be useful in relation to stock, as well as in situations where, for example, dogs are locked in vehicles and are suffering from heat stress. These amendments are welcomed by the Greens.
Another amendment relates to officers’ powers to treat an animal on the premises where previously officers had powers to treat animals after they had been removed from a premise. This is an important amendment as moving a distressed animal that has been treated cruelly can often cause further stress to the animal and could even cause death. I therefore support this amendment. The bill introduces an ability to serve penalty notices on offenders in order to facilitate enforcement of the Act in relation to offences prescribed by the regulations. The Greens support the efforts made in this measure to broaden the scope for enforcement of the Act and to enable resources to be directed to the more serious offences under the Act without ignoring the less serious ones. However, I stress that regulations must be carefully drafted in order to avoid the situation of violent crimes against animals being managed through a system similar to that of traffic fines.
The bill introduces the ability for an inspector to give written notices specifying actions required to take care of an animal. The notice and the taking of or failure to take action may be admissible in proceedings for relevant contraventions of the Act. This educative function is to be commended for its early intervention approach. I imagine that where a potentially cruel outcome is envisaged as a result of a person's ignorance, this could be a very useful provision to prevent cruelty occurring. I note that in the second reading speech delivered by Ms Alison Megarrity on behalf of the Minister in the other place she stated that this power is likely to be used for first offenders or in cases of less serious breaches of the Act. This could be a very useful tool, giving people a chance to deal with potential problems. However, I hope that the level of compliance with notices will be monitored and, where necessary, enforced through one of the other means made available in the legislation.
The exemption of veterinary practitioners from charges of cruelty to animals is removed under this bill. I support this amendment. Animals in the care of veterinarians deserve the same level of protection as others. With advances in veterinary science and the wide availability of analgesics, there is no reason for veterinarians to be exempt from such charges. The bill amends section 10 of the principal Act, which currently contains an offence of tethering or authorising tethering of an animal for an unreasonable length of time or by means of an unreasonably heavy or short rope, chain or cord. The amendment replaces the reference to "rope, chain or chord" so that the offence will apply to any sort of tether. I support this amendment. The words "rope, chain or chord" do not cover other materials, such as leather and fishing wire, such as that used for cock-fighting birds, and is therefore an important amendment.
Some years ago I came across what I understand to be called "peg dogs". They are dogs that are actually chained or tethered beside roadways to stop cattle and other stock from straying through the road to other paddocks. That is often the circumstance where no cattle grids and such are built into those roads. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition assured me that peg dogs generally are used on travelling stock routes so that they are there for a relatively short period of time. From my experience in the area of Lake Cowell, peg dogs were there for weeks at a time, just fed and basically ignored and kept in a state of deprivation, which would send them quite wild on their leads if stock came too close. That is understandable for a short time, be it overnight, if it is just a circumstance for travelling stock but if the practice of chaining or tying peg dogs to what appears to me to be a permanent shelter made of bent corrugated iron that covers an area, and they are just fed and watered and kept in the state of deprivation on their own to stop cattle from moving across to different properties, basically because the farmer has not seen fit to take the trouble or expense of putting in cattle grids, I ask the Government to investigate it if it is still an ongoing practice. I will remain open minded given the lack of information I have at this particular time.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill amends the offence contained in section 21 of the principal Act of causing, procuring, permitting or encouraging an activity in which an animal is used for the purpose of its being chased, caught or confined by a dog. The amendment seeks to limit the offence to circumstances in which the animal used has been confined and then released. The aim of this amendment is to control the scope of the offence so that it does not cover vertebrate pest control. The Greens do not support this amendment. Coursing has recently been banned in England and Wales, which have a long history of hunting. This is in response to evolving public opinion on the cruelty involved in this type of hunting. The Burns inquiry, a recent study commissioned by the Government of the United Kingdom, found that hunting with dogs causes extreme stress to the hunted animal. Subsequently, the United Kingdom Government passed the Hunting Act, which banned hunting with dogs. An amendment to provide exceptions from the prohibition on coursing is a regressive step.
Hunting with dogs is not an exact science. It is possible that hunted animals are not killed instantly but will be left to a slow and painful death after being seriously injured. Further, there is no guarantee that hunting dogs will not attack non-target species, including native animals, which may inhabit the same environment as the targeted species. The requirement that hunting activities produce unnecessary suffering in order to constitute an offence is vague and prone to different interpretations. What level of suffering can be deemed necessary?
The amendment may also be viewed as an endorsement of hunting and associated blood sports, which the Greens oppose. The use of dogs for chasing and killing rabbits and feral pigs no doubt will continue as a blood sport under the guise of vertebrate pest management. I acknowledge that coursing for sport is prohibited by the legislation. However, there is a problem with enforcement. I acknowledge also that a code of ethics in responsible hunting is being promoted by the Game Council. I support a move towards more responsible hunting in the context of feral animal control. But, while coursing remains legal, I have no doubt that pig-dogging, for example, as a blood sport will continue. This type of practice in fact can contribute to the feral animal problem, rather than help to eradicate it.
In order to ensure a plentiful supply of targets, additional pigs are released to be hunted in particular areas. So instead of only feral pigs being targeted and caught, extra pigs are added to an area, exacerbating the problem. I realise this is prohibited by the Act, but the prohibition is extremely difficult to enforce. I know from anecdotal evidence and what friends have told me that pigs have been seen in areas of forest not far from Sydney, most likely brought in from outlying areas. They probably were caught when they were very young and manageable, to be subsequently released in forests outside Sydney. They have torn ears, which is evidence that in the past they have been held by pig dogs. The hunter takes those smaller pigs to another forest area to ensure an adequate supply of wild pigs to sustain their lust for this type of hunting. From the Greens' perspective, that practice is unacceptable.
I have consulted with the New South Wales Farmers Association, which does not have a strict policy on this issue. While some of the association's membership support hunting with dogs, others have concerns about dogs that are out of control and on their land. Dogs need to be under control and secured at all times. This does not always occur in the use of dogs for coursing. When dogs are used for hunting they are out of control, with their wild instincts awakened. Dogs that sometimes escape or are lost in this manner can increase the population of feral dogs.
Feral dogs are perhaps one of the worst feral animal problems in New South Wales as they kill animals not just for food but for the fun of it. Packs of feral dogs can decimate herds of stock animals, not to mention their impact on native animals. In the Age in March this year was an interview with professional dog trapper Jack Mustard, who said that wild dogs are increasing in numbers in Australia. They are very difficult to track down and cause immense damage to livestock. He said he was "worried about what new breeds of wild dog might be capable of, particularly those mated with bigger breeds of hunting dogs." That is very concerning.
I am aware of a significant feral dog problem around Kosciuszko National Park, where enormous wild dogs have been sighted. Apart from posing a threat to other animals, those dogs can be a threat to humans, whether tourists in national parks or people in rural areas and on the fringes of towns. I note Premier Carr's announcement this week that pit bulls and a number of other dog breeds will be banned under new laws to be introduced in New South Wales. If there is concern about the dangers posed by those animals, there should also be great concern about the dangers of hunting dogs, which are blooded, and the real dangers of feral dogs. I would prefer greater controls on pig dog owners. What we have in this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction by the Premier. I understand the issues, but really it is the owners of those animals who must exercise controls.
It is irresponsible dog ownership that leads to difficulties. In some areas of the United States pig dogs and other potentially dangerous breeds must wear muzzles in public and have guaranteed secure places before councils allow people to have them. Those councils control the number of such dogs that can be owned by individuals, who must therefore obtain permission to own more than a certain number of those dogs. There need to be controls, but the Premier of New South Wales is reacting to headlines in the Daily Telegraph rather than taking sensible measures. There are issues with dogs attacking humans and other animals, including dogs. It is important to consider breeding issues, but I think it is more important to ensure that these dogs are treated appropriately by owners who would create ferocious dogs of all sorts of breeds, not only pig dogs.
I concede that feral animals are a significant problem in New South Wales, and the Greens support humane methods to eradicate them. Feral animals starve native animals of food, pollute water and rip up the soil and vegetation. They also pass on diseases to native animals. However, coursing is not the solution to their eradication. I have been told that hunting for feral animals through coursing accounts for a fairly insignificant number of feral animals being destroyed. Given that it has so little impact on the feral animal population, and given the problems with coursing I have just mentioned, the Greens cannot support this exception to the prohibition on coursing.
Just to be clear, I do not suggest that the use of dogs for sheep dog trials, mustering of stock, working of stock in yards or other animal husbandry activities should be prohibited. But coursing for pest control is not an acceptable practice. I will move an amendment regarding the prohibition on coursing for feral animal control. To ensure consistency, the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 should be amended to prohibit the use of an animal to capture or kill another animal during a hunt. The bill proposes to insert "deer" in the definition of "stock animal" in the principal Act. There has been some discussion of this proposed amendment. I would refer to the very valid points made by the honourable member for Bligh, Ms Clover Moore, regarding the fact that stock animals generally are afforded a lower standard of protection from cruelty than are other animals under the Act.
For example, stock animals are exempt from the requirement for adequate exercise. Also, certain procedures performed on animals classed as stock animals are acceptable under the Act as long as they do not inflict what is defined as "unnecessary pain". This is a very subjective definition. Pain that may be considered unnecessary in relation to domestic pets seems to be all right when applied to stock animals. The amendment to include deer in the case of stock animals reflects the fact that deer are now commonly farmed. I understand that the intention behind the inclusion was to bring the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in line with the regulations. However, if the Act and delegated legislation are to be brought into line, it is more appropriate that delegated legislation should follow the Act, and not the other way around. Causing the Act to follow the regulations leads to inadequate public consultation on the issue.
The Greens do not support intensive farming practices, and would like to see this form of farming phased out. The Greens support the prohibition on live animal exports and an end to battery and intensive feedlot farming. These practices are inherently cruel to animals, but because these animals are classed as stock animals they are not afforded the same level of protection from cruelty as are other animals. I note with some concern the inclusion of deer into this category. I will not oppose the amendment. If pigs, sheep and other animals are to be classed as stock animals, the exclusion of deer on the basis of the Bambi factor may be inappropriate. However, the Greens will continue to work towards better conditions for stock animals, the phasing out of intensive farming and the promotion and adoption of more appropriate farming methods.
I will not take up the time of the House completing in great detail a point that I recently made. However, I am concerned about the debate that has taken place in this House on the practice of mulesing. This is a case in point of stock animals being cruelly treated. Mulesing is the method widely used because of the inappropriateness of this particular animal in the Australian environment. That unacceptable practice is used to deal with problems associated with flystrike. Mulesing is one method, not the only method, to deal with the problem. Mulesing is not absolutely necessary. State agriculture departments promote it because it is cheaper and easier to mules once, rather than to provide proper management such as good breeding, inspection and crutching. Mulesing is performed to save labour costs and is an economic decision. In a New South Wales Department of Agriculture publication entitled "Science and the Merino Breeder" the authors note:
Breach strike by the sheep blowfly is a good example of a major disease which can be largely controlled by the breeding for absence of skin folds.
So there are ways around it. Dr John Auty is a veterinarian with vast experience in the meat and sheep trade. He has also worked as an agronomist, as a stud overseer in private practice, as the Chief Commissioner for Soil Conservation and in the Department of Primary Industry. He said this about mulesing:
It is similar to flaying and the pain will be experienced for weeks and months afterwards. Mulesing does not free the sheep from blowfly strike, but proper husbandry practices, including close inspection of sheep, will reduce and virtually eliminate flystrike.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: With 3,000 sheep, how do you do that?
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Melinda Pavey. Let me put it this way: 3,000 sheep in an environment to which they are not suited means that there is an onus on the owners to find out how to deal with fly strike in our Australian wool industry and by more frequent crutching of sheep, inspection, and breeding sheep that are more suited to this environment. There is a myth that mulesing is necessary to prevent fly strike. If Australian farmers did not mules, up to three million sheep would die from fly strike each year. This claim whittles down the choices to mutilation or death. Published estimates show that at least 20 per cent of Australian farmers use fly strike prevention and control techniques that do not involve cutting into their sheep, including increased monitoring during blowfly season, more frequent crutching, blowfly traps, and breeding to create plain-bodied, bare-breeched sheep.
Mulesing is not foolproof; it does not prevent body strike and it is not necessary to prevent three million sheep from getting strike. It is simply the cheapest and easiest option, and therefore it is presented as the best option by farmers with a vested interest in minimising the effort they expend to properly tend to their sheep. An increasing number of voices in the farming industry acknowledge this. For example, Chick Olsson, the former chair and current director of the Australian Wool Growers Association, said:
The lack of progress to date in changing industry practice reflects not a lack of economic alternatives to mulesing but a lack of will to unsettle entrenched orthodoxy.
I could go on about mulesing but I will not waste the time of the House. However, it is important to recognise that there are many other more humane and effective ways of dealing with fly strike. As I said, the Greens are concerned about intensive farming conditions and the lack of rights and humane treatment of many intensive farm animals. I will give an example of some of the appalling practices that occur in intensive farming. In Australia there are 300,000 breeding pigs or sows in pig farms or piggeries.
Sows in intensive pig farming are seen as production units, rather than animals needing space, comfort, a warm soft place to lie, and ample food. Almost 200,000 breeding sows in Australia are confined in a metal and concrete stall smaller than a child's cot. The sows cannot walk, turn around or even lie down in comfort. If this was done to a dog, the law would strongly deal with the perpetrator. However, as pigs are stock animals they are not afforded protection from these atrocious conditions. Pigs kept in such intensive conditions are chronically stressed and slowly become deranged. Pigs are intelligent animals; they are of similar intelligence to dogs. Many sows become lame and suffer chronic pain and other leg injuries because they cannot walk or exercise.
There is evidence that many piglets of sows in such conditions die from being crushed or suffocated because their mother is deranged from the months and years of such deprivation and suffering and she becomes unresponsive and unable to respond to her piglets' cries as she normally would. Sow stalls are banned in England, Florida and Sweden, and they are being phased out in Europe and New Zealand. Let us hope that we follow suit. The bill gives courts the power to prevent people convicted of cruelty to animals from owning another animal. The Greens support this amendment. It makes sense that if a person has been shown to be incapable of treating an animal properly, he or she should not be allowed to own another.
The limitation period for prosecutions under the Act is expanded from 6 months to 12 months under the bill. While the Greens are in favour of an extension of the period, I do not think that 12 months is adequate. There have been instances of video and photographic evidence of animal cruelty being rendered useless because a year has passed. A more appropriate time limit would be three years, which is the case in Victoria, and I will move an amendment to that effect. I note that recently the Government announced the formation of an Animal Cruelty Task Force, which will consider particular issues in the context of cruelty to animals in New South Wales. I commend the Government for this action.
The Greens support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill, but I will move a number of amendments to the bill. The Greens do not represent a bleeding-heart interpretation of animal husbandry. We receive significant concerns from the wider community because we understand that New South Wales has major agriculture and animal husbandry industries. That does not mean we have an excuse to be inhumane and cruel to animals in captivity in these industries. I commend the Government for introducing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill. I hope the Government will consider favourably the amendments that the Greens will put forward on this important issue.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.35 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill, the objectives of which are to make certain amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. That Act is the main legislation concerning the welfare of animals in New South Wales. These amendments intend to widen the number of options available for early intervention in cases of cruelty to animals, to improve compliance and enforcement powers and to streamline certain aspects of the Act's operations.
Recently the media exposed the atrocious treatment of a kitten named Shelley by two youths on 15 January this year. The eight-week-old kitten was subjected to horrendous cruelty. She was kicked, stoned and run over with a bike before being tossed onto a railway track. News of this incident made headlines across the nation, instigating an intense response from the community. How many people would have asked themselves: How can a young person have such disregard for the life of a small, indefensible animal? One of the youths responsible for this atrocity has been brought to account and is liable to imprisonment and fines.
Instances of animal cruelty are heart wrenching and offensive to civilised standards of conduct. It is disturbing to think that the Shelley incident was not a one-off; it is a reality that many instances of animals subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment go unnoticed. I believe that the Shelley incident brought to the fore the existence of a number of problems, including, for example, the fact that youths act against animals simply because they see the animals as an outlet for their frustration and violence in their lives. As a young probation and parole officer dealing with violent young people, and a psychology student at the same time, I was intrigued by the fact that a large number of articles had been written about the relationship between violence in young adults and violence towards animals.
An article entitled "Animal Abuse and Youth Violence", authored for the American Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Bulletin in September 2001, asserted that animal abuse is not a panacea for addressing youth violence because such behaviour is multidimensional, but that it is hard to deny that animal abuse and interpersonal violence towards humans share common characteristics. We must treat the underlying problems faced by our youth and not simply provide a bandaid solution. Interestingly, in 2003 Professor Paul Wilson, in the Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, explored the relationship between criminal behaviour and mental illness in young adults in the context of cruelty to animals. He expressed that cruelty to animals appears to be a strong indicator or red flag in the background of many serial killers, and thus it is suggested in the history of perpetrators of other forms of major interpersonal violence. Professor Wilson gave one good example:
The Tasmanian town of Port Arthur experienced what could be considered Australia's most terrible act of mass violence in April 1996 when Martin Bryant killed 35 people in a 19-hour rampage... there are a number of "red flags" that would indicate cause for concern in light of offender activities. This is particularly so for Bryant who had been referred to mental health officials prior to his involvement in Port Arthur. He was first referred in 1973 when he was 7 years old, and again in 1977 where his assessment at the Hobart Diagnostic Centre noted he had tortured and harassed animals.
Professor Wilson concluded that a link between animal abuse and violent offending is far from proven, but that there appears to be no coincidence that the history of many offenders includes the abuse of animals. Professor Wilson concluded that cruelty to animals deserves more attention from both a research and assessment perspective. I believe there is much truth in the saying in the Bible in the book of Proverbs 12:10, which states that "a righteous man cares for the needs of his animals but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel". Mr Scully has said that he will establish an animal cruelty task force composed of representatives from the Attorney General's Department, NSW Police, the RSPCA and the like to consider these issues, including diversion schemes for juvenile offenders. These plans are welcomed by the peak organisation—the RSPCA—advocating for the rights of animals.
The Minister said in the second reading speech that the bill provides a dual approach to improve animal welfare. On the one hand there will be greater early intervention and education. On the other there will be improved enforcement and compliance provisions. We welcome both of these. As previous speakers said, some measures in the bill give inspectors the power to give directions to people on notice for the way they treat their animals. Inspectors will be well equipped to communicate the standards of behaviour that are acceptable. Preventative and educational measures work hand in hand. I will not take time to speak about the measure it repeals, the current blanket defence for veterinary surgeons, because it is self-evident.
There is clarification of certain offences relating to the tethering of a bird or animal. "Tether" means to restrain so that an animal can move only in a restricted area by a rope, chain or cord. Other members have spoken about this, but I will say one thing. Dogs may be tethered on the back of light trucks to protect the tools of trade and goods in the tray of the truck. However, the tethering of that dog frequently is the cause of its death. Often the dog wants to chase another dog or another vehicle, jumps out, and is run over by the truck it was in.
It is important to note that the bill introduces a defence relating to the work of stock in yards, other animal husbandry activity and sheep dog trials. Like the previous speaker, I believe it is doubtful whether the amendment makes it clear that offences will not be extended to hunting, shooting, snaring, trapping, catching or capturing an animal by using dogs, if it is done in a manner that inflicts no unnecessary pain on the animal. This is extremely doubtful. It is open to all kinds of interpretation. The Act would be stronger if all kinds of coursing were banned in toto.
The bill allows the court to ban persons convicted of certain offences against animals from owning any other animal. The bill also allows penalty notices to be issued by officers for less serious offences. We congratulate the RSPCA on its work. Earlier this year the RSPCA Australian Scientific Seminar discussed "Cruelty to Animals: A Human Problem". The outcome of the seminar should prove fruitful in the cause of animal protection. I was intrigued with the title, because this is where the emphasis belongs, on the human problem, the owners of the animals. We commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Greg Donnelly.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! It being 3.45 p.m. business is interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment motion, if he desires to do so.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:48 : Update this page