Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2009

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.01 p.m.]: Prior to question time I was referring to some of the issues to do with kangaroo culling. At this time of the year—when the kangaroo slaughter was undertaken as part of this year's Mount Panorama race activities—many kangaroos would have had a joey at foot and one in the pouch. A local consulting ecologist we work with judged that shooting 140 kangaroos would most likely wipe out the entire kangaroo population at Mount Panorama. It is still unclear whether the council had a kangaroo management plan to deal with the infants when their mothers were killed.

Another animal welfare failure that the Greens have exposed recently is the sale of animals to private game park operators, where the commercial interests of our zoos were given priority over animal welfare. Dubbo Zoo sold endangered blackbuck antelopes to a private game reserve operator and member of the Shooters Party, Mr Bob McComb, for between $160 and $300 each. Mr McComb apparently hopes to set up a safari park for hunters if the Government passes the Shooters Party bill before the House. As Mr McComb now owns these animals, he may have the legal right to shoot the animals on his property even if the Shooters Party bill is not passed. Clearly, this is an area in which legislation should provide protection to animals. The widely reported sale of the endangered blackbuck antelope should never have been allowed to occur. People expect zoos to protect and care for animals—not sell them off to a person intent on using them for recreational hunting.

The then environment Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, tried to sidestep this embarrassing incident by saying she did not have to approve the sale. But she was the Minister responsible for Western Plains and Taronga zoos and she should have stated publicly that the sale of any zoo animals to hunters was unacceptable. She also should have sought expert advice on establishing ethical guidelines for the management of animals that are in excess to what zoos can manage. There is no sign in the bill that the work has been done.

Shooting in national parks is another example of the Government pandering to the Shooters Party. The worst example in recent times is that the Government did not rule out straightaway the Shooter's Party Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill, which would allow recreational shooters to hunt feral animals in national parks. There are various other aspects to that bill. We are now at the end of October. The second reading on the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill occurred in this House in June this year. The Government is aware of the massive community outcry about the bill, but as I understand from some of the media reports—and I understand the environment Minister, Mr John Robertson, held a press conference about this—the Government is still failing to rule out that it will negotiate with the Shooters Party on the legislation.

The opening up of State forests to recreational shooters in 2006 was bad enough, but the bill is a step too far. Allowing hunters in national parks would create a real threat to public safety and native wildlife, and destroy the pristine qualities of our parks. The Shooters Party tried to paint the legislation as environmentally responsible but it is really an act of vandalism, risking the spread of feral animals into new areas. The bill is so ludicrous that it even makes it an offence for the public to approach hunters who are shooting in declared areas. The bill also makes it legal for commercial safari parks to operate in New South Wales, and to breed and shoot birds as live targets. This is an abhorrent proposal that has proved to be deeply unpopular with the overwhelming majority of the general public.

Members of the environment and animal welfare groups, people from the gun control movement, as well as a large number of rangers and members of the Public Service Association, including the assistant secretary, Mr Steve Turner protested outside Parliament House today. When people from those groups spoke, they spoke with passion and concern. It was particularly interesting to hear from the rangers. It really comes home to one that these people would be in the front line if this unacceptable piece of legislation were ever passed. Also deeply unpopular is the New South Wales Game Council's resumption of the native duck shooting season in New South Wales. The Game Council recently advertised its intention to run a game bird education program for recreational hunters—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon, are you speaking to the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2009?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, Madam Deputy-President. It is interesting to hear that comment from you as Deputy-President. The long title of the bill states: "An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to the keeping, protection and welfare of animals". So I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy-President, that clearly what is relevant here is the fact that the Government may have, for whatever reason—perhaps because of an oversight or perhaps another reason—failed to include in the bill issues to do with the keeping, protection and welfare of animals. I have sought to outline some of those issues that have been omitted from the bill and should have been included in it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The member should confine her comments to the bill, which will amend three Acts. It is not appropriate at this stage for the member to be speaking to other bills that are on the Notice Paper but are not currently before the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. As I was saying, also deeply unpopular is the New South Wales Game Council's resumption of the native duck shooting season in New South Wales. The Game Council recently advertised its intention to run a game bird education program for recreational hunters who want to begin shooting native ducks. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of licensed recreational hunters since the Government opened up New South Wales State forests to so-called conservation hunting in 2006. Recreational shooters will now be able to do a Game Council course—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The matter the member is speaking about now is not covered by the bill before the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Madam Deputy-President, my understanding is that it is in keeping with the long title of the bill. The long title of the bill states: "An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to the keeping, protection and welfare of animals".

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! That is right, an Act to amend three different pieces of legislation—the Exhibited Animals Protection Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Apiaries Act. In relation to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the bill refers to prohibition orders for people who are keeping animals. The member should confine her comments to the bill we are dealing with. It is not an opportunity for the member to speak about animal welfare matters in general.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Madam Deputy-President, I have to ask: Are you taking a point of order from the chair? I am finding it difficult to know what the process is.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Chair is responsible for ensuring that the standing orders are upheld. It is not necessary for the Chair to take a point of order; the Chair directs the debate to ensure that the standing orders are being adhered to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. I must admit that I do not have my copy of the standing orders in front of me at the moment, but my recollection is that the debate should be in the context of the long title of the bill. The long title of the bill states: "An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to the keeping, protection and welfare of animals". That is how I have prepared my speech.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! In that case, the member should be aware that the bill amends certain Acts and she should confine her comments to the Acts that are being amended in relation to the welfare of animals.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Madam Deputy-President. Although the bill has a broad title, it is unfortunately narrow and did not include circus animals. The welfare of circus animals is another campaign that has received overwhelming community support but has not resulted in a total ban on the mistreatment of wild animals in circuses. The bill could easily have dealt with it when one of the Acts to be amended, as pointed out by the Deputy-President, is the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986. Wild animals should be banned in circuses. Their deprivation causes extreme suffering, torment and depression, and I have often observed it to be distressing to the young children who witness it. It is clearly not natural behaviour for wild animals to perform circus tricks. They do so only because they have been mistreated.

It is ridiculous to say that circus lions are treated well. One simply cannot meet the welfare needs of a wild animal in a circus cage. Many people share the view that it is inhumane and immoral to inflict lifelong suffering on a wild animal for the entertainment of human beings. The Greens have called on local governments to ban any circuses with exotic wild animals from performing on council-operated land. I congratulate the majority of councils in New South Wales that have implemented such a ban. I also acknowledge the animal welfare groups and members of the public who have taken up this issue. It is another demonstration of the shortcomings of the legislation when the opportunity for the New South Wales Government to introduce a total ban on circus animals was missed.

If the bill had been more extensive in dealing with animal welfare then factory farming should have been covered in depth. Perhaps the biggest need for reform in New South Wales is factory farming, which institutionalises the suffering of animals. Such inhumane farming methods might be legal, but they are also extremely cruel. Corporations and small farmers alike callously increase their profit margins by using food production measures that are unnecessarily cruel to animals. This culture of cruelty is one of the biggest animal welfare reform hurdles we face, and the New South Wales Government is doing little to reign it in. This bill reinforces that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The next piece of legislation addresses that.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Coalition member. I am surprised the member is so confident in the approach of the Government on this issue. Millions of laying chickens suffer in cages each year, yet the Government has failed to introduce tougher laws to prevent any cruelty to these animals. The Government will not introduce mandatory labelling legislation to ensure that consumers can be sure of exactly the conditions under which the eggs were laid. Currently, New South Wales consumers can be misled by shonky labelling as to whether eggs are laid free range, in a barn or in a cage because of an absence of mandatory labelling. An egg producer in New South Wales is under no obligation to meet legislative standards that define what free range or barn laid eggs mean. Existing consumer protection laws rely on complaints being made, investigated and prosecuted.

Egg marketeers are free to exploit the growing desire of consumers for food that is produced ethically in a way that protects animal welfare. We just have to trust what we read on the egg carton. It is time that the Government responded to the trend towards ethical eating and promoted truth in labelling and kinder food production methods. Pig farming still allows inhumane treatment of pigs at piggeries. Pigs are still so cramped that they cannot even lie down, let alone move around in their stalls. The time is long overdue for the Government to review and reform the whole practice of using sow stalls. It is inhumane and barbaric, and not in keeping with community standards and expectations.

When will these urgent welfare needs of animals be addressed? I do not share the confidence of Mr Gay that the answer lies with the next piece of Government legislation. There are so many ways in which animal welfare rights need to be strengthened in this State, but this bill will provide little material improvement to the majority of our animals. I urge the Minister to escalate these issues on the Government's agenda. Even though the bill relates to animal welfare, and includes that expression in its title, it is very limited in what it delivers.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. I also note that the issues that the New South Wales Farmers Association may have had have now been addressed. In response to the issues raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon about high impact category, category seven procedures, statistics collected and published by the Animal Review Research Panel annual reports in 2004-05 and 2007-08 show that since 2005 the number of animals used in category seven has declined by 21 per cent. In 2005, 20,387 animals were used in category seven procedures. In 2007, which is the year for which the most current statistics are available, 16,017 animals were used. Category seven procedures result in interference with an animal's physiological or psychological processes and can cause a moderate or large degree of pain or distress that is not quickly or effectively alleviated.

All animal research in New South Wales is carried out in accordance with the nationally accepted Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. New South Wales is a leader in the protection of animals used in research. The New South Wales Animal Research Act establishes a veterinary inspectorate as well as an animal research review panel to oversee the use of animals in research. The animal research review panel includes nominees from animal welfare and scientific organisations. No animal research may be carried out without the approval of an animal ethics committee, which includes veterinary, scientific, animal welfare and independent members.

It is unfortunate that some animals used in research will experience pain or distress. Wherever possible this must be minimised, for example, by the use of pain-relieving medication. The animal research review panel publishes extensive examples of methods used by research establishments to replace the use of animals, to reduce the number of animals and to reduce the impact of procedures on animals. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.


Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.