Parliament Debate on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012
12/09/2012
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Page: 15005
Second Reading
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill makes important amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 that will significantly benefit the welfare of stock animals and regional communities.
The bill achieves this by introducing a new mechanism to assist both animal welfare agencies and those in charge of stock animals to achieve better outcomes in cases where stock are not receiving adequate care.
The amendments will provide for practical and cost-effective intervention in stock welfare cases so that the stock are either restored to good health, or sold, with the net proceeds of sale going to the stock owner.
The amendments are designed to prevent situations developing where the condition of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel to keep them alive. In such a case, the stock are destroyed.
The amendments will also provide an opportunity to educate and assist the person in charge of stock animals to implement measures to restore the health of the stock—without the need for direct prosecution action.
The objects of the Act are to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote the welfare of animals.
It does this by requiring those in charge of animals to care for them appropriately and treat them in a humane manner.
The Act prescribes offences which constitute cruelty to animals. These include offences for failure to provide animals with food, drink or shelter where it is reasonably practicable to do so. These are known as ‘failure to provide’ cases.
Animal welfare agencies are charged with the responsibility of investigating the condition of animals where the welfare of the animal is alleged to be at risk.
As the enforcement agencies under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, universally known as the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, and the police, are the front-line troops enforcing the standard of care we expect for animals.
In ‘failure to provide’ cases involving certain stock animals, inspectors from the enforcement agency must seek advice from the Department of Primary Industries as well as a Livestock Health and Pest Authority before commencing prosecution action.
The advice can include an assessment of the state of the stock, the adequacy of the feed and water available and options to improve the condition of the stock.
This bill relates specifically to the welfare of stock animals. It makes further provision for inspectors and those with expertise in animal welfare and livestock management to work with the person in charge of stock that have been assessed as being at risk, to return the stock to good health.
Significantly, it contains a new power for the director general of the department to authorise the seizure and disposal of distressed stock following the failure of the owner or person in charge of the animals to take notified remedial action in relation to the stock.
There are currently two provisions in the Act that provide for the seizure and sale of animals. However, both require court intervention.
The first is an interim disposal order that may be granted by the local court in circumstances where an inspector has taken possession of an animal in relation to an alleged offence.
The second is where a person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offence and the court orders the disposal of the animal. Such an order is on the basis the court considers the convicted person would be likely to commit another cruelty offence if that person were to be in charge of an animal.
These existing provisions respond well to a case involving a single companion animal such as a dog or a cat. However, they do not address the challenges of a stock welfare case that may involve large numbers of cattle or sheep.
The process under the existing provisions can also be costly and time consuming. Taking possession of stock animals can be expensive.
The animals must be cared for by the welfare agency until court action is finalised. Or the animals must be nursed back to health by the agency and returned to the owner.
Whilst costs are recoverable, quite often the stock owner will not be able to meet these costs.
Further, there is no guarantee that if the stock are returned to the owner they will be adequately cared for. This could potentially result in a cycle during which the health of the stock continues to deteriorate until they are in such a poor condition that it is deemed cruel to keep the stock alive and the welfare agency is left with no choice but to humanely destroy the stock.
The bill seeks to address this limitation in the Act.
The new mechanism in the bill provides the director general of the department with the power to authorise the seizure and sale or other disposal of stock animals in certain circumstances, without the inevitable expense and delay involved in court proceedings.
Firstly, the seizure and sale powers may only be used in relation to stock animals that are kept on land that is rateable by a Livestock Health and Pest Authority.
‘Stock animals’ are defined in the Act to mean cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, goats, deer and any other animal species that may be prescribed in the regulations.
Further, the seizure and sale powers may only be used in cases where the director general reasonably suspects that stock animals are distressed or likely to become distressed, because they have not been provided with necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter.
In this context, the bill defines a stock animal as being in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury.
In determining whether to exercise the power to seize and dispose of stock animals, the bill requires the director general to establish a Stock Welfare Panel and to consider the reports of that panel.
The role of the Stock Welfare Panel will be to investigate and assess the situation and report to the director general on the state of, and appropriate care for, the stock animals and other relevant matters concerning the welfare of the stock. This may include such matters as feed and pasture availability and the seasonal outlook for the animals.
The panel will consist of an inspector authorised under the Act, an officer of the department and at least one representative of a Livestock Health and Pest Authority with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management.
The panel may also include other persons as prescribed in the regulations such as a person with skills in animal nutrition or a representative of New South Wales Farmers.
The expert panel will also work with the stock owner or person in charge of the stock to develop a plan to manage the welfare of the stock—known as a management plan. The goal of the management plan will be to restore the stock to good health.
However, if the stock owner or person in charge is unable or unwilling to comply with the management plan, the amendments will allow the director general to issue a written notice—known as an official warning—to that person.
The official warning will inform the person that the director general intends to authorise the seizure and disposal of the stock if the remedial action set out in the official warning is not complied with in the specified time period.
The action set out in the official warning will be consistent with the management plan developed by the panel, in consultation with the stock owner or person in charge.
If an official warning is issued, the panel must monitor compliance with it. At the expiry of the period of time specified in the official warning, the panel will reassess the situation and provide a further report to the director general with recommended action.
If the stock owner has complied with the official warning, the panel’s recommendation may be that no further action is required. However, if there has been a continued failure to comply and the condition of the stock is deteriorating, the panel may recommend that the director general seize and dispose of the stock.
A recommendation to seize and dispose of the stock would generally only occur after the panel has worked with the stock owner or person in charge under a management plan and it has become evident that the person is unwilling or incapable of rehabilitating the stock.
If, after considering the panel’s further report, the director general is satisfied the required remedial action has not been taken and the stock remain in distress or are likely to become distressed, the director general can authorise an inspector to seize and dispose of the stock.
In those unfortunate instances where stock are seized and sold, the proceeds of the sale, less the costs associated with the care, seizure and sale of the stock, will be paid to the stock owner. No compensation will be recoverable by the owner.
Where the sale proceeds do not meet the costs associated with the care, seizure and sale of the stock, those costs may be recovered from the owner.
These amendments are a significant addition to the Act and will provide more options and flexibility when confronted with stock animal welfare cases. These amendments do not remove an inspector’s power to destroy stock in a humane manner if it has been determined that the animal is in such a condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive.
Inspectors do not make such decisions lightly. Where possible, advice is sought from a vet and other experts on the condition of the stock. Sometimes, however, immediate action is required to prevent the ongoing suffering of the animal.
We all know that the farming community does an excellent job of caring for their stock, even when conditions are very challenging. You will recall the prolonged and devastating drought that we suffered between 2002 and 2010. During that period animal welfare agencies sought advice from the Department and Livestock Health and Pest Authorities in a number of “failure to provide” cases involving stock animals.
In most instances those responsible for the stock complied with directions aimed at rehabilitating the stock—a good outcome was achieved for the welfare of the animals and the stock owner.
Cases did occur however where the condition of the stock deteriorated to such an extent that it was cruel for them to be kept alive.
When this unfortunate situation occurs, the stock are destroyed, and the owner is usually prosecuted for failure to provide and aggravated cruelty. This is the worst outcome for all involved.
Valuable stock will have suffered and their value will be completely lost. The stock owner, and often the nearby farming community, endures the emotional stress of seeing the stock destroyed.
The owner also endures the stress and expense of prosecution action.
This sequence of events can be traumatic for all involved. In extreme cases, police officers have had to be called to ensure the safety of those destroying the animals.
The process is not just traumatic, it is expensive, time consuming and, at the end of the day, fails to protect the welfare of the animals.
Frankly, this is a scenario we do not want to recur.
Situations such as this are the reason for making the amendments in the bill—so that the relevant authorities can work with the stock owner or person in charge to achieve a better welfare outcome without the need for prosecution action.
I believe we can provide for better outcomes for our farming communities and the welfare of their animals. These amendments will empower the director general of the Department to authorise animal welfare agencies to sell seized stock under certain circumstances without needing to obtain a court order. This is a simpler, more straightforward, and more effective process.
The New South Wales Government is committed to working with animal welfare experts, the community and industry to continually improve animal welfare standards in our State. Most farmers in New South Wales take the welfare of their animals very seriously. Where this has not been the case, it is timely that the Government makes the proposed amendments to safeguard against the unnecessary destruction of these animals. The amendments in the bill are supported by both the RSPCA and the New South Wales Farmers Association. This bill aligns animal welfare interests with the interests of the livestock industry.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [5.46 p.m.]: The Opposition will support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. We understand The Greens are foreshadowing some amendments, a couple of which we would be happy to consider, based on the Government’s comments on them as well. This bill is a positive step. It makes a number of amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act relating mainly to the way that inspectors go about removing animals that are not being properly cared for, particularly after an owner has refused or been unable to act on previous directions to improve their care. The objects of the bill, as outlined in the bill, are as follows:
(a) to enable the Director-General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services to authorise the seizure and disposal of distressed stock animals following the failure of the owner or person in charge of the animals to take notified remedial action in relation to them,
(b) to require the Director-General, in determining whether to authorise the seizure and disposal of stock animals, to consider the reports of a Stock Welfare Panel in relation to the animals’ state and welfare, and implementation of the notified remedial action,
(c) to provide for associated matters (including the constitution and functions of Stock Welfare Panels, the recovery of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the seizure and disposal of stock animals, and the exclusion of personal liability in the exercise of proposed functions) …
It also enables the director general’s powers to be delegated. This legislation addresses some issues that arose during drought, particularly in relation to the care of animals that were in poor condition for a number of reasons, often the lack of fodder. It addresses circumstances where sufficient steps have not been taken to care for those animals, particularly where the owner has refused or been unable to follow the directions of welfare officers who have visited and given directions as to better care of those animals. In the past it has been difficult for visiting RSPCA inspectors to remove stock. They have always had power to destroy stock in certain circumstances and they retain that power under this legislation— The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: But not the power to save them.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It has been difficult in some cases, as the Government Whip has interjected, to save them. This will make it more practical for inspectors, following a process which I will come to shortly, to have the stock removed so that they can be saved and sold. One of the difficulties for the RSPCA in removing the stock was that it then had to pay for its ongoing long-term maintenance. Obviously we want to give some protection to the landowners who own the stock to ensure they feel the decision to remove the stock is fair. In that regard the Opposition supports the Government’s move to establish welfare panels. I have spoken to the RSPCA’s chief inspector about this and I understand that organisation also supports the measures being introduced. The RSPCA has had practical difficulties in the past and it believes these measures will save them from the difficulties that have arisen in some cases where they have had to go to court to get orders to remove stock.
There were some examples of this during the drought when the RSPCA had difficulties but there were also some complaints from farmers about the measures that inspectors were taking. The Opposition acknowledges that creation of the panels will provide the opportunity for a balanced consideration of the issues involved. The Opposition is positive about the make-up of the panels as detailed in the bill. We also do not have a problem with the way the Government proposes to establish these panels in part through regulation. It is important for the panels to include experts but it is also important to enable representatives of farmers to be involved in the process at times to ensure farmers are given some say. The Opposition certainly does not have an issue with that aspect of the bill. It is a sensible thing to do. I believe this is a measure that will be generally welcomed. Certainly the RSPCA seems to be quite positive about it. I believe the farming community also will be quite positive about the bill. The bill will enhance the welfare of stock around New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [5.51 p.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 in New South Wales is a very important aspect of law enforcement in our society. This is in part because much of the law enforcement under the Act is provided by two dedicated charitable organisations. While the NSW Police Force also plays an important part, the two charitable organisations are the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW—the RSPCA—and the Animal Welfare League NSW. Both of these organisations are approved by the Minister for Primary Industries to enforce the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 under section 34B.
The two charitable organisations have inspectorates that carry out their compliance and enforcement roles. Their inspectors have a wide range of backgrounds. They may have worked in occupations such as defence, wildlife care, veterinary nursing, zookeeping, farming, or local government; and they can and do include former members of the police force. Their backgrounds are often helpful in their animal welfare compliance work. The inspectors can remove animals from owners who are neglectful or indifferent or even cruel to the animals within their care. Further, they have extensive investigative and compliance powers under the Act. Inspectors investigate complaints every day about all types of animals in all kinds of situations. They work with and in pet shops and saleyards, and on farms and hobby farms. They particularly work with those who hurt and do not adequately care for animals, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Following their investigative work, inspectors, as well as the police, can provide advice on the appropriate care of an animal. They can also issue official warnings and directions to address welfare concerns or issue infringement notices if certain offences against the Act have been committed. In more serious cases the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League NSW and police have the power to prosecute owners who treat animals cruelly. It is vital that the welfare of the animal is the foremost consideration and that we have legislation in place that makes an inspector’s job as workable as possible.
The bill before us today proposes an important amendment to support the process whereby decisions are made by inspectors and others about the management, seizure and sale of stock animals that are not being adequately cared for. The clear intent of the bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues where the person in charge of the stock is willing to take action to rehabilitate those animals. The bill will allow the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries to establish a panel of experts—to be known as the Stock Welfare Panel—who will provide advice and a recommended course of action on the situation to the director general. The Stock Welfare Panel will aim to work with the person in charge of the stock to implement remedial action under an agreed management plan. This important step provides an intermediary mechanism to consider the situation and all the available options to ensure optimal animal welfare outcomes can be achieved when making decisions about the fate of the animal or animals.
Sometimes it may be determined that the stock can be rehabilitated but the person in charge of the stock may refuse or be unable to work with the panel to implement remedial action. In these cases the panel may recommend to the director general that the stock be seized and sold or disposed of in another way. The proceeds of the sale, less the costs associated with the care, seizure and sale of the stock will be returned to the owner. I support the comments about the panel made by the Hon. Steve Whan and I am glad the Opposition supports the make-up of the panel. One of the amendments that I understand The Greens will move relating to the make-up of the expert stock panel is to prevent organisations such as NSW Farmers being included. This is from an organisation that has for many months been trying to claim it is the farmers’ friend while cherry picking some of the issues that have arisen. I am glad that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has turned up to listen to this part of my speech. The Greens have been cherry picking one or two issues to claim to be the advocate—
The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order: Notwithstanding I am sitting next to the Hon. Niall Blair, I cannot hear him while the member opposite is screaming. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! All interjections are disorderly. The Hon. Niall Blair will be heard in silence.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: For The Greens to move an amendment that would prohibit organisations such as NSW Farmers from being on an expert panel that would give advice about the welfare and handling of stock is ludicrous. It shows the hypocrisy of The Greens in that they will use NSW Farmers when they see fit but when it comes to matters of substance—and NSW Farmers want to be included on this expert panel—the Greens have no hesitation in moving an amendment to prevent that from happening. NSW Farmers is now being labelled by The Greens as not being expert in stock handling. That is what The Greens are ultimately saying with their amendment. NSW Farmers is working with its members, some of whom may be going through difficult circumstances.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members will cease interjecting. The Hon. Niall Blair has the call.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We have seen some unfortunate cases in the past throughout our State where the mental health issues that some in the farming community may have been suffering flowed over into animal handling and unfortunately some animal cruelty. Organisations such as the NSW Farmers Association have supported and advocated for farmers through the tough times. It is ludicrous to suggest that those organisations and their members should be precluded from appearing on these expert panels. I am glad that Opposition members have come to their senses and recognise the importance of having organisations such as the NSW Farmers Association on these expert panels.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: We’ve always had an excellent relationship.
The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I acknowledge the ongoing relationship of the NSW Farmers Association with all major parties. Unlike The Greens, who are trying to prevent New South Wales Farmers from appearing on this expert panel, at least Opposition members are showing their support for this bill which will introduce measures to help to achieve better animal welfare outcomes for stock animals that are not receiving adequate care. These amendments include preventive measures for the management of stock animals before they deteriorate to such an extent that it is considered cruel to keep them alive and they have to be destroyed. Victoria already has enacted such legislative provisions, so it is only appropriate for New South Wales to enact similar legislation, in particular, as we will be dealing with cross-border issues. I commend the bill to the House. I am confident that other members will voice their dismay at the amendments proposed by The Greens which will prevent farmers in New South Wales from appearing on these expert panels.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.04 p.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The shadow Minister for Resources and Primary Industries, the Hon. Steve Whan, has already indicated that Labor supports the bill. On 5 September the Minister for Primary Industries, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, said in her second reading speech that this bill is supported by both the RSPCA and the NSW Farmers Association. The Minister said that this bill aligns animal welfare interests with the interests of the livestock industry. It is a straightforward piece of legislation.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 will make important amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. These amendments are intended to improve the welfare of stock animals in rural and regional communities, particularly during times of drought and other hardships such as bushfires, storms and flooding. This bill originates from the unfortunate events during the recent drought which eased in December 2010. In its 2010-11 annual report, the RSPCA advised that it had been involved in euthanasing 417 livestock in New South Wales and that it had taken a further 234 livestock into its care during the same period.
Under this bill stock animals are defined as cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, goats, deer and other animal species that may be prescribed in the regulations. Put simply, this bill is about reducing the unnecessary destruction of those animals. Through the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012, both animal welfare agencies and those in charge of stock animals will be able to respond more quickly on those occasions when livestock is not receiving adequate care. The bill will provide for practical and cost-effective intervention in stock welfare cases. These animals either will be restored to health or will be sold, with the net proceeds of sale being returned to the farmer.
I have been advised that these amendments were designed to prevent situations where the state of the animals deteriorates to the point where it would be considered cruel to keep them alive. Unfortunately, in the recent drought there were cases in which animals had to be destroyed. Under existing laws it is difficult for an RSPCA inspector simply to remove livestock from properties if it is warranted. During the last drought this caused problems and a number of animals had to be euthanased rather than removed. Currently, two provisions in the Act provide for the seizure and sale of animals but they are cumbersome and both require court intervention.
In the first provision an officer has to obtain an interim disposal order that may be granted by the Local Court in circumstances where an inspector has taken possession of an animal in relation to an alleged offence. The second provision is where a person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offence and the court orders the disposal of the animal. Such an order is on the basis that the court considers the convicted person would be likely to commit another animal cruelty offence if that person were to be in charge of an animal. In her second reading speech the Minister said that these existing provisions respond well if we are dealing with a pet such as a dog or a cat. However, they do not address large numbers of cattle or sheep. Further, the current process will be costly and time-consuming for animal welfare officers. The animals must be cared for by the welfare agency until court action is finalised or the animals must be nursed back to health by the agency and returned to the owner.
While costs are recoverable, quite often the stock owner, especially during times of drought, will not be able to meet those costs, and this is not practical. In addition, there is no guarantee that if the stock is returned to the owner it will be adequately cared for. The Minister also said that this could potentially result in an unenviable cycle. This could cause a situation where the health of the stock continues to deteriorate until it is in such a poor condition that it is deemed cruel to keep the stock alive and the welfare agency is left with no choice other than to humanely destroy it, which is simply cruel and unnecessary.
I turn now to the specifics of the bill. I support the fact that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 gives the Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services significant powers and responsibilities. The new powers for the director general are fourfold. Firstly, they will enable the director general to authorise the seizure and disposal of distressed stock animals following the failure of the owner or person in charge of the animals to take notified remedial action in relation to them. Secondly, it will require the director general, in determining where to authorise the seizure and disposal of stock animals, to consider the reports of a stock welfare panel relating to the animals’ state of welfare, and implementation of the notified remedial action.
Thirdly, it will provide for associated matters, including the constitution and functions of the stock welfare panel, the recovery of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the seizure and disposal of stock animals, and the exclusion of personal liability in the exercise of proposed functions. Finally, it will enable the director general to delegate the powers under the Act. The Minister has assured the Legislative Assembly that the seizure and sale powers may be used only in extreme cases. The Minister is referring to situations where the director general reasonably suspects that stock animals are distressed or are likely to become distressed because they have not been provided with necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter.
I have said in debate on other animal welfare bills that my views on animals and animal welfare have shifted from my days of growing up in rural Canada. I support the New South Wales agricultural sector and the challenges it faces, but we also have a responsibility to reduce the suffering of animals and, at the same time, balance that with the need to produce food for those who wish to consume meat. Further, I abhor unnecessary cruelty to animals. If this bill reduces or aims to reduce animal cruelty in New South Wales it has my support. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House and thank the House for its consideration.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [6.08 p.m.]: The Greens support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 but foreshadow that we will be moving five reasonable amendments in Committee to tighten and clarify three areas. I will deal with my proposed amendments at the appropriate stage. This bill will enable the Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services to authorise the seizure and disposal and sale of stock animals where the director general reasonably suspects that stock animals are distressed or likely to become distressed because they have not been provided with necessary treatment by a veterinarian or with proper and sufficient food, drink and shelter.
In her second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industries, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, said that court intervention was required to exercise provisions for the seizure and sale of animals and that the process would be costly and time-consuming because the animals must be cared for by a welfare agency until court action is finalised. This is particularly problematic in cases of stock welfare involving large numbers of cattle and sheep. The powers that will be given to the director general will be available only for stock animals kept on land that is rateable by the Livestock Health and Pest Authority. Stock animals are defined in the Act; therefore, this bill is not aimed at companion animals.
The director general will need to consult with a stock welfare panel established in each circumstance when determining whether to exercise the seizure and sale powers. The panel will include an inspector authorised under the Act, an officer of the department, and at least one representative of the Livestock Health and Pest Authority with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management. A clause in the bill will enable regulations to provide for any other person to be appointed to the panel. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to that clause. The panel will give the director general advice on the rehabilitation prospects for the animals and the care that is needed. The panel will work with the stock owner on a management plan to restore stock to good health. If the stock owner does not comply with the management plan, the director general can issue a written notice, which is an official warning. If there is continued failure to comply with the warning notice, the panel may recommend seizure and sale.
The bill is primarily aimed at failure-to-provide cases, that is, failure to provide animals with food, drink or shelter. The Minister says drought situations prompted the Government to develop these provisions. In essence, this bill will allow for a shift in enforcement from a punitive approach to a collaborative approach. That is demonstrated in the ability of a stock welfare panel, working collaboratively with the stock owner, to develop a management plan to remediate welfare problems. Stock owners will be issued with warnings and given the opportunity to address their non-compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act before offence proceedings are launched.
There are advantages and disadvantages in collaborative and punitive enforcement approaches. The Greens support the opportunity to provide for a collaborative approach and we ask the Government to do it well. However, the punitive action provisions will remain in the bill and we trust that they will be exercised with vigour whenever appropriate—which should be a lot more often than is currently the case. Most importantly, the Government must seriously lift its game across the board when enforcing compliance with this Act to prevent cruelty to animals and because compliance and enforcement efforts currently leave a lot to be desired and many animals are suffering. Much greater resources should be provided to the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to assist them in their enforcement role. The resources provided to the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, given their responsibilities under the Act, are paltry; in fact, they are appalling. The Greens and animal welfare activists have been calling for more resources so that they can undertake their important enforcement and compliance work more effectively. Responsible agencies such as the Department of Primary Industries and the Food Authority must develop a much stronger enforcement culture when it comes to animal welfare.
I have been told of a travesty of lax enforcement that preceded the current investigation into Wally’s pig farm. Valenti Perenc, who is known as “Wally”, is said to have been illegally slaughtering pigs at his premises and illegally selling the meat. Footage shows that he used a sledgehammer to slaughter the pigs and hacked at their throats while his staff drank beer and watched. Sometimes the pigs took as long as six minutes to die. Desmond Sibraa, a barrister and former meat inspector for the Federal and New South Wales governments, has made a statement about the history of enforcement action taken against Wally’s piggery. He says the Meat Industry Authority—its functions have since been transferred to the New South Wales Food Authority—first started taking an interest in Wally’s piggery as long ago as 1984. Wally was investigated and convicted of animal welfare offences twice between then and 1993. Mr Sibraa believes that the Food Authority has not inspected the piggery since 1993 and asks why. One can well ask why a person with Wally’s record on animal welfare was allowed to continue in the piggery business. We can certainly ask why he was allowed to do so without any oversight. I would like an answer to the questions on that issue that I have put on notice.
Given the egregious nature of animal welfare offences we repeatedly see in this State, the overall limitations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the inadequacy of resources for its enforcement and compliance, the Government’s legislation is very modest and so, too, are The Greens’ amendments. Animal welfare stakeholders like The Greens would like to see much more extensive reform to strengthen the much-needed protection of animals that suffer cruelty on a daily basis in this State. Regrettably, that is for another day. I have consulted animal welfare stakeholders—including enforcement agents—about the legislation and the Greens’ modest amendments are the product of that consultation. As I said, The Greens support the bill and I thank the Minister for introducing legislation that improves the welfare of animals in New South Wales.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.14 p.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Australia has some of the most variable rainfall in the world. The main cause of that variation is the southern oscillation, and its most extreme effect is known as El Niño. In recent years a strong El Niño resulted in a nine-year drought in New South Wales and across the eastern seaboard—the worst drought in more than a century. During El Niño events, large parts of eastern Australia are typically drier than normal during winter and spring. Planning for contingency action in the case of drought is critical for farm management, including livestock welfare management. It is vital that farmers make early management decisions to ensure the welfare of their livestock in drought. Many summer rainfall areas also experience regular dry periods in the winter. With heavy frosts, feed quality rapidly deteriorates and stock loses condition quickly.
Most farmers take good care of their livestock and those who can afford it provide their animals with supplementary feed as they lose condition. In my former life I was a consulting agronomist and I did a great deal of work on drought and winter feeding of cattle. We would analyse the feed available in the paddock and design a ration. We could design a ration taking into account what the farmer could afford and what he wanted. For example, if he wanted to maintain the condition of dry cows they would be given a certain ration. If they were young stock and the farmer wanted them to gain weight we would give them a different ration.
However, situations do arise where livestock owners are unable or unwilling to feed and manage their livestock adequately and livestock welfare becomes an issue. Currently, if an enforcement agency authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 receives a complaint regarding poor livestock welfare, it seeks advice from the Department of Primary Industries and a Livestock Health and Pest Authority veterinarian or ranger about the best way to manage the stock. Under the Act, the owner or person in charge of the stock will be issued with a notice setting out measures to be taken to improve the welfare of the stock. That can include, for example, directions for feeding or appropriate veterinary treatment. Usually, the person in charge will comply with the directions, the stock animals will regain condition and the matter is resolved.
While all attempts are made to assist stock owners or persons in charge of stock during this process, in some cases the person involved may not be willing or able to comply with the inspector’s directions and the animals may continue to deteriorate. If this occurs, prosecution action is instigated and the stock is either seized or humanely destroyed if it has been determined it would be cruel to keep it alive. If the animals are seized, an inspector may retain possession of them for only up to 60 days or until proceedings commenced in relation to the matter are finalised. This can be very difficult and expensive in situations involving, for example, a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep. No provisions in the Act allow for the sale of the seized stock without prosecution action having been taken or without involving the court. If the stock is returned to the owner or person in charge and that person continues to be recalcitrant the welfare of the animal will again be compromised and the process continues in a cyclical manner until the stock either dies or has to be destroyed. That is a poor outcome for all involved and it can result in considerable stress and anxiety for the people involved and across local communities.
This bill allows for earlier intervention where stock animals are suffering, are in distress or are likely to become distressed. This is to be provided for by the establishment of a stock welfare panel. The panel will include an inspector for the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League or the NSW Police Force. It will also include at least one officer from the Department of Primary Industries with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management, and at least one representative of a livestock health and pest authority with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management. The panel will also include such other person or persons as the regulations may prescribe.
It is important that “such other persons” include people who have the appropriate qualifications to deal with very delicate issues that are faced during periods of drought, particularly in relation to drought-affected livestock and the stock owners who are also traumatised by the drought. In the past all too often inspectors have not shown sufficient sensitivity in such delicate situations which further traumatises livestock owners and certainly does nothing towards helping livestock. I think that a stock welfare panel is a good idea as it will handle such situations delicately.
The amendments also aim to minimise the need for prosecution action. When New South Wales enters another drought, despite the fact that the soothsayers and doomsayers have said it will not happen because of climate change—which most of us do not believe—at some stage we will have either floods or another 10-year drought, as has occurred in this country for the past 200 years. When we are in another period of long and deep drought and welfare concerns arise on a property, this bill will prove valuable in achieving optimal animal welfare outcomes. This bill will provide more and better outcomes for the welfare of livestock. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.21 p.m.]: I concur with the comments of my colleague the Hon. Steve Whan who led for the Opposition in debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. I also support the bill. I have supported and I will support in the future any measures that are introduced that will improve animal welfare. I was concerned by the earlier statement of the Hon. Cate Faehrmann that The Greens are the only party concerned about animal welfare. That simply is not the case. The Greens do not have ownership of that issue; they are not the only people concerned about animal welfare. Ethical farmers are concerned about the welfare of stock on their property, in particular, some families that have kept the same strain of breeding stock for generations. They get terribly upset when they have problems as a result of drought, bushfires or anything else that causes them to lose stock or that causes them to keep stock in less than optimal conditions. I support this bill. I also deny the assertions that have been made in this debate. Animal welfare is a cause for concern for all members and all major parties in this State. It cannot be claimed as being the domain of only one group. Animal welfare is our responsibility collectively. For those reasons I support the improvements outlined in this bill.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [6.23 p.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 and commence my contribution in a similar vein to the contribution of my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless by talking about the effects of droughts. During climatic extremes, whether droughts or flooding rains, those on the land feel it most. Agriculture always suffers first and most severely. Some droughts are long-lived and some are short and intense and they cause significant damage. Some droughts can be localised and others can spread across different regions of New South Wales. Some regional droughts are not related to El Niño events and therefore are harder to forecast. Drought reduces breeding stock numbers, disrupts cropping programs and erodes the capital and resource base of farming enterprises. Declining productivity affects rural New South Wales and the national economy. Agriculture plays a vital role in the New South Wales economy and contributes around $8.4 billion to the New South Wales economy each year. Our livestock, wool and dairy industries account for almost half that figure. New South Wales produces high quality meat which we export all over the world. The combined value of our State’s beef, sheep, pork and poultry industries is approximately $2.9 billion. We should all be proud of those industries—and we must continue to support them—not only for the money that they contribute to our economy but also for the jobs and communities they create in our regional areas. In order to ensure the continuation of the livestock industry in New South Wales, and the high standard of meat, dairy and wool that we produce, we need to take the welfare of livestock seriously. Animals that are mistreated are not as productive, and reproduce much less. In simple terms, unhealthy and unhappy animals produce poor quality meat and dairy products. It is widely recognised that all farmers take good care of their stock. However, in times of severe drought or other adversity, occasionally the condition of stock animals is allowed to deteriorate until their welfare becomes an issue. The clear intent of this bill is to minimise the need for compliance action relating to stock welfare issues where the person in charge is willing to take action to rehabilitate those animals. The bill proposes an important amendment to support inspectors who are required to make decisions about the management, seizure and sale of stock animals that are not being adequately cared for. The bill will allow the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries to establish a panel of experts—to be known as the Stock Welfare Panel—that will provide advice to the director general on the recommended course of action without necessarily having to instigate prosecution action immediately. The bill will allow earlier intervention where stock animals are suffering or are in distress, or are likely to become distressed, and it will provide for their management and/or sale. It will provide a better outcome for animal welfare. I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [6.26 p.m.], in reply: It is with great pleasure that I speak in debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. As many members would be aware, before the election I was shadow Minister for Primary Industries.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That is because you like cows.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I did not hear what the Hon. Amanda Fazio said but, as usual, I suspect it was offensive. The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No, I said that you liked cows.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I like cows, sheep, sheepdogs and everything else about my farm. I am sure that those who are on the farm probably like it better when I am not there. The welfare of stock is important to many people in regional New South Wales. Recently I was approached by Peter Carter, a veterinary surgeon and farmer from Wellington and a long-time advocate for New South Wales farmers.
The Hon. Rick Colless: A good bloke.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As the Hon. Rick Colless said, he is a good bloke. Peter was frustrated by the fact animals in drought conditions were not being properly examined. He wanted to approach farmers who had animals in drought conditions and advise them on the best way to protect those animals and thus benefit their business enterprises. People from veterinary backgrounds, people with a comprehensive knowledge of livestock and people from the retail side of farming must be appointed to these expert panels. Only in that way will we prevent sad incidents such as those that occurred in the Pilliga and in other parts of New South Wales. Farmers do not want to see their livestock hurt. This bill will ensure that those animals are properly protected.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Page: 14633
Bill introduced on motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, read a first time and printed.
Second Reading
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck—Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business) [12.23 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 makes important amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 that will significantly benefit the welfare of stock animals in regional communities. The bill achieves this by introducing a new mechanism to assist both animal welfare agencies and those in charge of stock animals to achieve better outcomes in cases where stock are not receiving adequate care. The amendments will provide for practical and cost-effective intervention in stock welfare cases so that the stock are either restored to good health or sold, with the net proceeds of sale going to the stock owner. The amendments are designed to prevent situations developing where the condition of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel to keep them alive. In such cases the stock are destroyed.
The amendments also will provide an opportunity to educate and assist the person in charge of stock animals to implement measures to restore the health of the stock without the need for direct prosecution action. The objects of the Act are to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote the welfare of animals. It does this by requiring those in charge of animals to care for them appropriately and treat them in a humane manner. The Act prescribes offences that constitute cruelty to animals. These include offences for failure to provide animals with food, drink or shelter where it is reasonably practicable to do so. These are known as failure-to-provide cases. Animal welfare agencies are charged with the responsibility of investigating the condition of animals where the welfare of the animal is alleged to be at risk.
As the enforcement agencies under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—universally known as the RSPCA—the Animal Welfare League and the police are the front-line troops enforcing the standards of care we expect for animals. In failure-to-provide cases involving certain stock animals, inspectors from the enforcement agency must seek advice from the Department of Primary Industries and a Livestock Health and Pest Authority before commencing prosecution action. Advice can include an assessment of the state of the stock, the adequacy of the feed and water available and options to improve the condition of the stock. This bill relates specifically to the welfare of stock animals. It makes further provisions for inspectors and those with expertise in animal welfare and livestock management to work with the person in charge of the stock that have been assessed as being at risk to return the stock to good health.
Significantly, the bill contains a new power for the director general of the department to authorise the seizure and disposal of distressed stock following the failure of the owner or person in charge of the animals to take notified remedial action in relation to the stock. Currently, there are two provisions in the Act that provide for the seizure and sale of animals. However, both require court intervention. The first is an interim disposal order that may be granted by the Local Court in circumstances where an inspector has taken possession of an animal in relation to an alleged offence. The second is where a person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offence and the court orders the disposal of the animal. Such an order is on the basis that the court considers the convicted person would be likely to commit another cruelty offence if that person were to be in charge of an animal.
These existing provisions respond well to a case involving a single companion animal such as a dog or a cat. However, they do not address the challenges of a stock welfare case that may involve large numbers of cattle or sheep. The process under the existing provisions can also be costly and time consuming. Taking possession of stock animals can be expensive. The animals must be cared for by the welfare agency until court action is finalised, or the animals must be nursed back to health by the agency and returned to the owner. Whilst costs are recoverable, quite often the stock owner will not be able to meet these costs. Further, there is no guarantee that if the stock are returned to the owner they will be adequately cared for. This could potentially result in a cycle during which the health of the stock continues to deteriorate until they are in such a poor condition that it is deemed cruel to keep the stock alive and the welfare agency is left with no choice but to humanely destroy the stock.
The bill seeks to address this limitation in the Act. The new mechanism in the bill provides the director general of the department with the power to authorise the seizure and sale or other disposal of stock animals in certain circumstances, without the inevitable expense and delay involved in court proceedings. Firstly, the seizure and sale powers may only be used in relation to stock animals that are kept on land that is rateable by a Livestock Health and Pest Authority. “Stock animals” are defined in the Act to mean cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, goats, deer and any other animal species that may be prescribed in the regulations. Further, the seizure and sale powers may only be used in cases where the director general reasonably suspects that stock animals are distressed, or likely to become distressed, because they have not been provided with necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter.
In this context, the bill defines a stock animal as being in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. In determining whether to exercise the power to seize and dispose of stock animals, the bill requires the director general to establish a Stock Welfare Panel and to consider the reports of that panel. The role of the Stock Welfare Panel will be to investigate and assess the situation and report to the director general on the state of and appropriate care for the stock animals and other relevant matters concerning the welfare of the stock. This may include such matters as feed and pasture availability and the seasonal outlook for the animals. The panel will consist of an inspector authorised under the Act, an officer of the department and at least one representative of a Livestock Health and Pest Authority with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management.
The panel may also include other persons as prescribed in the regulations, such as a person with skills in animal nutrition or a representative of New South Wales Farmers Association, if that is the wish of the farmer involved. The expert panel will also work with the stock owner or person in charge of the stock to develop a management plan to manage the welfare of the stock. The goal of the management plan will be to restore the stock to good health. If the stock owner or the person in charge is unable or unwilling to comply with the management plan, the amendments will allow the director general to issue a written notice—known as an official warning—to that person. The official warning will inform the person that the director general intends to authorise the seizure and disposal of the stock if the remedial action set out in the official warning is not complied with in the specified time period. The action set out in the official warning will be consistent with the management plan developed by the panel, in consultation with the stock owner or the person in charge. If an official warning is issued, the panel must monitor compliance with it. At the expiry of the period of time specified in the official warning the panel will reassess the situation and provide a further report to the director general with recommended action.
If the stock owner has complied with the official warning, the panel’s recommendation may be that no further action is required. However, if there has been a continued failure to comply and the condition of the stock is deteriorating, the panel may recommend that the director general seize and dispose of the stock. A recommendation to seize and dispose of the stock will generally occur only after the panel has worked with the stock owner or person in charge under a management plan and it has become evident that the person is unwilling or incapable of rehabilitating the stock. If, after considering the panel’s further report, the director general is satisfied that the required remedial action has not been taken and the stock remain in distress or are likely to become distressed, the director general can authorise an inspector to seize and dispose of the stock. In the unfortunate instance where stock are seized and sold, the proceeds of the sale—less the costs associated with the care, seizure and sale of the stock—will be paid to the stock owner. No compensation will be recoverable by the owner. Where the sale proceeds do not meet the costs associated with the care, seizure and sale of the stock, those costs may be recovered from the owner.
These amendments are a significant addition to the Act and will provide more options and flexibility in stock animal welfare cases. These amendments do not remove an inspector’s power to destroy stock in a humane manner if it has been determined that the animal is in such a condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive. Inspectors do not make such decisions lightly. Where possible, advice is sought from a vet and other experts on the condition of the stock. Sometimes—but not in all cases—immediate action is required to prevent the ongoing suffering of the animal. We all know that the farming community does an excellent job of caring for its stock, even when conditions are very challenging. Members will recall the prolonged and devastating drought that this State suffered between 2002 until the first good season in 2010. During that period, animal welfare agencies sought advice from the department and livestock health and pest authorities in a number of cases of failure to provide involving stock animals. It is from that situation that the amendments to this bill have originated.
In most instances, those responsible for the stock complied with directions aimed at rehabilitating the stock, resulting in a good outcome for both the welfare of the animals and the stock owner. However, there were a few cases where the condition of the stock deteriorated to such an extent that it was cruel for the animals to be kept alive. When this unfortunate situation occurs, the stock are destroyed and the owner is usually prosecuted for failure to provide and aggravated cruelty. That is the worst outcome for all involved. Valuable stock will have suffered and their value will be completely lost. The stock owner—and often the nearby farming community—endures the emotional stress of seeing the stock destroyed. The owner also endures the stress and expense of prosecution. When one adds to this the emotional disturbance stock owners experience due to the effects of a prolonged drought, one can imagine that the sequence of events can be traumatic for all involved. In extreme cases, where the stock holder has experienced such trauma, police officers have had to be called to ensure the safety of those destroying the animals.
The process that existed under the former Government was not just traumatic but expensive, time consuming and failed to protect the welfare of the animals. The Government does not want to see that scenario recur. The fact that these situations were occurring is the reason why the amendments in the bill are being proposed. A system is required under which the relevant authorities can work with the stock owner or the person in charge in order to achieve a better welfare outcome without the need for prosecution. This Government can provide for better outcomes for our farming communities and for the welfare of their animals. These amendments will empower the director general of the department to authorise animal welfare agencies to sell seized stock under certain circumstances, without needing to obtain a court order. This is a simpler, more straightforward and more effective process.
The New South Wales Government is committed to working with animal welfare experts, the community and industry in order to continually improve animal welfare standards in our State. Most farmers in New South Wales take the welfare of their animals very seriously. Where this has not been the case, it is timely that the Government makes the proposed amendments to safeguard against the unnecessary destruction of those animals. The amendments in the bill are supported by both the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of New South Wales and the NSW Farmers Association. This bill aligns animal welfare interests with the interests of the livestock industry. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Paul Lynch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
Animal welfare standards are being eroded by cheaper products undercutting potential humane and acceptable standards. Coles must apply the policy of banning pork products that use sow stalls across the board, and not just target Australian producers. This would simply be hypocrisy and customers would simply buy the cheaper product, but with a clear conscious. Sow stalls are inhumane and the stress on intelligent pigs by being pinned in an upright position for up to 16 weeks must be enormous. Factory farming is a blight on civilised society and all animals must be treated humanely and naturally.
It’s a good move by Coles but such an awful pity that they have only done this because they feel this is what the consumers now want rather then because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully this ideology will find it’s way into all of the production methods for the foods they sell at supermarkets.
Congratulations to Coles for taking the initiative. It is a bit late for Australian Pork Limited (APL) to be complaining. The message that it is unacceptable to cram pregnant pigs into steel cages has been loud and clear for a long time and APL have ignored retailers and consumers to their peril. Government has also failed to take the lead on pig welfare standards. Tasmania decided to go it alone because everyone was growing old waiting for APL and Government to address the issue. The management of APL has been appalling and the extensive producers who pay a levy to APL for every pig killed should consider a challenge. The Australian Government matches research and development money with APL but the question goes begging – how much is spent on extensive production research and how much is spent justifying intensive confinement? They do nothing to support the extensive producer and are only now playing catch up.
So thank you Coles for taking an industry lead on this issue as it is important to many Australians.
Pigs in general can be aggressive, but pregnant sows are generally less aggressive than other pigs, especially late in their pregnancy.
Many developed countries have banned sow stalls for pregnant sows years ago. There is plenty of experience with alternative systems which overall work much better.
There were similar producer outcries in Denmark in the mid 90′s a few years before the stalls were banned. Managing sows in groups is different and more challenging, but also more rewarding. It improves the welfare of both the animals and their handlers!
The Australian producers should get rid of the individual stalls ASAP – they are not worth hanging on to and represent a ticking bomb – in the form of risk of damaging the image of the entire Australian pork industry (already has) and pork meat in general. Clinging to familiar but poor old practices is a stupid strategy.
Good on Coles for taking this step!
Sorry, there is a mistake in my comment above – I just learned that sow stalls are still allowed in Denmark. It was the even older confinement systems with collars that was banned in the 90′s.
Anyway, during the 90′s and probably later as well when there was focus on the animal welfare issues with the stall, many pig farmers converted to the use of group based systems, typically with deep litter in parts or all of it. Almost every pig farmer I knew or heard of during the 90′s either phased out the gestation crates or were planning to do so when the system they had was paid down. I actually thought the confinement system was banned but apparently the conversions were voluntary.
The stalls are banned in Sweden and the UK and will be banned in Denmark from 2014. Until then, eat Swedish and UK pork:-)
My father raised pigs in Parkes NSW. He loved them to the extent that even though we had no heating, the sows had bar heaters and classical music playing 24 hours a day . They were hand-fed and all 200 of the sows were treated like queens and frequently produced 13 babies each litter. Most breeders love their pigs and treat them well. It is the demands of companies such as COLES and WOOLWORTHs that leads to mistreatment in order to supply specified weight and fat content levels for each of the animals.