New Stock Welfare Panel – NSW POCTAA Amendment Bill 2012

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012
5/09/2012 Legislative Assembly
About this Item
Speakers Hodgkinson Ms Katrina

Business Bill, First Reading, Second Reading, Motion

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.

About this Item
Speakers Humphries Mr Kevin; Amery Mr Richard; Bromhead Mr Stephen; Lynch Mr Paul; Conolly Mr Kevin; Patterson Mr Chris; Cornwell Mr Andrew; Williams Mrs Leslie; Issa Mr Tony; Williams Mr Ray; Lee Dr Geoff; Flowers Mr John; Bassett Mr Bart; Rowell Mr Jai; Parker Mr Jamie; Hodgkinson Ms Katrina

Business Bill, Message, Second Reading, Third Reading, Motion

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Page: 15023

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 September 2012.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Minister for Western New South Wales) [10.03 a.m.]: Before speaking to the bill, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from St Edwards Primary School, Tamworth, which was my old school. It is a great school in a terrific location. I would appreciate it if students passed on my regards to their effervescent principal, Mr Gary McSweeney. I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Law enforcement is an important issue in today’s society. Enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 in New South Wales is a very particular aspect of law enforcement. It is particular because, while the NSW Police Force plays an important part, much of the law enforcement under the Act is provided by two dedicated charitable organisations. The first is referred to as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales, or what is more frequently referred to as the RSPCA; the other is the New South Wales Animal Welfare League.

Under section 34B of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, both organisations are approved by the Minister for Primary Industries to enforce the provisions of the Act. The two charitable organisations have inspectorates that carry out their compliance and enforcement roles. Their inspectors come from all sorts of backgrounds. They may have been former members of the Police Force, or have worked in occupations such as defence, wildlife care, veterinary nursing, zookeeping, farming or local government. Their backgrounds are often helpful in their animal welfare compliance work. The inspectors can remove animals from owners who are neglectful of, indifferent towards, or even cruel to the animals under their care. Further, they have extensive investigative and compliance powers under the Act. In their daily work, inspectors investigate complaints about all types of animals in all kinds of situations. Investigations are conducted into pet shops, the treatment of animals in saleyards, the management of farm animals during adverse or extreme climatic conditions such as drought, and those who intentionally or unintentionally hurt animals.

Following their investigative work, inspectors, as well as 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 New South Wales Animal Welfare League and police have the power to prosecute owners who treat animals cruelly. It is vital that the legislation makes an inspector’s job as workable as possible and that the welfare of the animal is the foremost consideration. 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 clear intent of the bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues where the person in charge 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 to the director general on the situation and a recommended course of action. The panel will investigate and assess the situation and work with the person in charge of the stock to implement remedial action under an agreed management plan wherever possible. This is an important step; it 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. In some situations it may be determined that the stock can be rehabilitated. However, the person in charge of the stock may refuse or be unable to work with the panel to implement remedial action.

In those 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 paid to the owner. In those cases the person in charge could face prosecution. The bill introduces practical measures to help achieve better animal welfare outcomes for stock animals that are not receiving adequate care. The amendments will provide preventative measures to manage stock animals before the welfare of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel for them to be kept alive and they have to be destroyed. Victoria also has seize-and-sell provisions in its legislation, and it is appropriate that New South Wales harmonises legislation with other jurisdictions.

One of the reasons that the Act requires amendment and clarification is demonstrated by a number of incidents that occurred in the Barwon electorate, across western New South Wales and in some areas of the North Coast. In the peak of the 2006 and 2007 drought a number of landholders were struggling to feed their cattle. Not only were they struggling, but life was being made difficult for them in circumstances where the RSPCA was used by the previous Government to engage in intimidatory compliance action. There was one very nasty incident in the Pilliga area in which a lady landholder saw 80 of her cattle shot because of the actions of the Minister at the time, Minister Macdonald. The Minister would not work with the landholder, and potentially moved to a seize-and-sell operation, largely because he did not want agencies to be holding stock and paying the feed bills.

The good work of what was then the local rural lands protection boards, the district veterinarian and some local landholders who sought to act as intermediaries was not recognised or acknowledged. Unfortunately, the RSPCA, because of the position in which it was put by the previous Government, shot some of the stock in front of the landholder, her family and a number of other local people. I was there two days later. Not all the cattle were shot. They were Friesian crosses running in the Pilliga and they were always going to look woody, as we call it. They always look thin, as dairy cattle do, because they are a bony type of beast. The outcome was considerable litigation, not only against the lady involved but also against a number of other landholders across New South Wales. It was simply unacceptable.

The reason for the amendment is not just to harmonise the process within New South Wales and across other jurisdictions, but also to bring fairness back to the situation of dealing with animals potentially at risk and working more closely with the landholders, the infrastructure and the people already working within our communities. Most of those whom it is proposed in the bill can make up the panel work within the Livestock Health and Pest Authority groups, including beef officers, district veterinarians and other experts. That will provide a far more equitable outcome and much more support for landholders. On my own behalf and that of a number of other rural constituency members, I commend the Minister for Primary Industries for introducing this amendment. I know of a number of incidents in western and south-western Sydney and in the Blue Mountains, involving people looking after older stock, including horses, which to some well-meaning bureaucrats and neighbours looked frail and thin, largely because of their age. We need to be a little more sensitive when it comes to dealing with people and how they look after stock. Any action in such circumstances should be undertaken in a fairer and more equitable manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [10.12 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. I do not lead for the Opposition in this debate—that will be done by the shadow spokesperson—but I do want to make a number of personal observations in relation to it. The first object of the bill is 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. That is the most important reform as far as the powers of an inspector or an officer of the RSPCA are concerned. The next object of the bill is 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 state and welfare of animals and the implementation of the notified remedial action. The consideration of reports of a stock welfare panel about the state and welfare of animals is most important.

The prevention of cruelty to animals is particularly important and was afforded high profile by the former Government. Indeed, legislation relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals was my responsibility when I was Minister for Agriculture in the previous Government. As Minister I made a point of designating one of my staff to look at issues concerning the prevention of cruelty to animals and relevant legislation. As a result, we rewrote large slabs of the legislation, increased penalties quite substantially and brought in a number of major reforms to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. For example, during our term in office, the legislation was amended to require that a dog being carried in the back of a utility be tethered. Prior to changes to the law introduced by Labor, young koalas could be passed around as many as 60 or 80 bus tourists for the purpose of a photo shoot. We changed that protocol to ensure that such animals were kept in a stationary position to stop them becoming distressed.

Under the previous Government, the use of steel-jaw leg traps and similar devices was brought under scrutiny, as were issues relating to animal research. I reject the implied criticism of the previous speaker suggesting neglect of such issues by the previous Government. I am personally proud of the reforms introduced by Labor relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The bill makes particular reference to livestock. When dealing with issues relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals we must differentiate between how people look after individual pets in a domestic situation—that is, pet dogs, cats, birds, or what have you—and the plight of farmers dealing with sometimes many hundreds or thousands of livestock, whether it is cattle, sheep or other. They are entirely different landscapes for the RSPCA to assess.

Beef is produced in a variety of intensive industries, and we are familiar with the production of pig and chicken meats. People with little experience of livestock or rural agriculture would be shocked to see how animals, even in this modern era, are summarily dispatched in those environments. But weighing our conscience on those matters, we must make some compromises in our efforts to feed an ever-growing world population, which has doubled since about 1960. The bill refers to an issue that has arisen many times in the last number of decades: how farmers can look after their livestock during times of climatic difficulties, particularly drought. I am interested to ensure that any officer of the RSPCA who attends to confiscate sheep and/or cattle affected by drought is not acting on his or her own observations alone or the sole advice of the RSPCA. The bill will ensure that a panel or committee will oversight any decision of the RSPCA to remove stock from a farming operation or to summarily destroy such stock—which is often the sad by-product of such adverse conditions such as drought or fire.

I have always been a supporter of the RSPCA, but I have sometimes been critical of overzealous RSPCA officers operating alone when dealing with a farmer who is under extreme stress to care for livestock in circumstances not well understood by people living in residential areas in electorates like mine. During times of bushfires, which destroy livestock, or drought, which can extend for years, it must be acknowledged that it is not easy for farmers to keep stock alive or nourished to the high standard we would all like to see. Such farmers will contact livestock officers in the Department of Agriculture, now the Department of Primary Industries, or officers of what used to be known as rural lands protection boards, or private veterinarians, in order to do whatever they can—their very best—to keep their stock alive. After all, at the end of the day, their stock are their assets. There is no benefit to any farmer—at least any farmer I have dealt with, without exception—to deliberately treat an animal cruelly, as some people seem to think happens during times of drought.

Water and feed consumption is reduced and, of course, stock numbers are reduced by the farmers in order to manage during drought—a situation that has long been a part of the Australian landscape. Whilst I am very supportive of increasing the powers of RSPCA officers, there must still be checks and balances put in place and caution exercised before they enter property and perhaps confiscate and destroy animals when it is suggested that a farmer is either deliberately or through ignorance not doing enough for his or her stock during an unprecedented drought, extreme flood or bushfire. There should be a requirement that the RSPCA consult other organisations—such as the Department of Primary Industries, livestock authorities and veterinarians—and consult with the farmers themselves. I welcome these provisions; they will make good law and will strengthen the powers of the RSPCA.

I think we can all feel good about giving the RSPCA more power to deal with farming operations during times of economic downturns, droughts and the like. But I again emphasise strongly the need to ensure that their powers of seizure have checks and balances. From my observation, and the Minister may wish to respond to this, the director general will be required to consider reports of a stock welfare panel before the RSPCA can use the very strong powers it will have under this legislation. In some cases I have seen RSPCA officers act too severely because they have not recognised the stress under which some farmers are forced to manage in times of drought. On some occasions farmers need a supporting hand rather than the hand of law enforcement. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [10.22 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 aims to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote the welfare of animals. It does this by requiring a person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. With regard to livestock, the Act provides inspectors with certain powers in relation to the care of animals that have not been provided with adequate food, drink, shelter or veterinary treatment. However, unless prosecution action has been taken, the Act does not provide powers for the sale or management of such animals. This can leave the enforcement agency with no alternative but to humanely destroy livestock.
The proposed amendments are designed to prevent situations developing where the condition of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel for them to be kept alive. In doing so, the bill creates new powers for enforcement agencies to take action in cases where livestock are suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. The object of the bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to enable the Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services to authorise or delegate the ability to authorise the seizure and disposal of distressed stock animals; and, 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 state and welfare of animals and the implementation of the notified remedial action. The bill also provides for the recovery of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the seizure and disposal of stock animals, the exclusion of personal liability in the exercise of the proposed functions, and other miscellaneous matters.
The legislation proposes the establishment of a panel of experts, the Stock Welfare Panel, to investigate and report on the sale of and appropriate care for the animal or animals. The director general is to issue a notice to the owner or person in charge of the livestock informing them of the intention to seize and sell the stock if actions specified in the notice to improve the welfare of the stock are not taken within a time specified in the notice. The bill proposes that the panel is to monitor compliance with the notice and provide recommendations on actions following the expiry of the notice. The proceeds of any sale are to be used to recoup the costs associated with the care and sale of the stock, with any residual funds returned to the owner.
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 clear intent of the bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues when 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 the Stock Welfare Panel, which will provide advice to the director general on a situation and a recommended course of action. The panel will investigate and assess a situation and work with the person in charge of the stock to implement remedial action under an agreed management plan wherever possible.
This is an important step; it provides an intermediate mechanism to consider the situation and all the available options to ensure that optimal animal welfare outcomes can be achieved when making decisions about the fate of the animal or animals. I owned a grazing property for 20 years. In the good times it would carry 70 breeders, no trouble at all, plus their progeny and fattened steers. But in times of drought, even on the coast, conditions were devastating. At times paddocks were nothing but dirt and nothing could be done to improve them. Owners sold off their stock as their situation became worse, and even though farmers and graziers did everything they could to care for their stock, when you looked at the stock you could see their hip bones and ribs sticking out; it was obvious that they were not in good condition.
The stock owners bought feed and water and did everything they could to maintain their stock. At the same time, RSPCA inspectors, whose job it was to ensure that the stock was being humanely cared for, could—as the member for Mount Druitt said—sometimes be overzealous in their actions. This legislation puts in place a mechanism that is very important for farmers and graziers right across New South Wales. It is important also for the livestock industry and for the animals themselves. Rather than action being taken to have animals put down, management plans will be put in place and assistance provided by the Government to try to save the stock. The legislation provides a number of provisions—

Dr Geoff Lee: Tell us.

Mr Paul Lynch: That has to be a disorderly interjection.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: I know the member for Liverpool is dying to hear about some of these provisions. Schedule 1 [2] inserts into the Act part 2B, which deals with the procedure by which the director general may deal with stock animals that the director general reasonably suspects are in distress due to specified types of neglect, and associated matters. New section 24O will limit the application of proposed part 2B to stock animals depastured on rateable land and will define and interpret certain terms and references for the purposes of the part. New section 24P enables the director general to issue an official warning by way of written notice to the owner or person in charge of a relevant stock animal that the director general intends to authorise the seizure and disposal if the remedial measures specified in the notice are not taken within the specified period.
The official warning may only be issued if the director general reasonably suspects that the animal is in distress, or is likely to become distressed, due to a lack of necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter. Before issuing the official warning the director general must constitute a Stock Welfare Panel and consider its report on the state of, and appropriate care for, the animal. The panel is to monitor compliance with the official warning and on the expiry of the period specified for compliance provide a further report to the director general on the results of its monitoring and the appropriate action to be taken in relation to the animal.

New section 24Q enables the director general by written order to authorise an inspector to seize and dispose of the animal if, after considering the panel’s report on compliance with an official warning, the director general is satisfied that the official warning has not been complied with and the animal remains in distress or is likely to become distressed. Compensation is not recoverable against any person in respect of the seizure and disposal of a stock animal, in accordance with the proposed section. A good aspect of the bill is that after the stock are seized and sold and the costs of that seizure and sale are taken out, any money left over goes to the stock owner.
This is well thought out and needed legislation. As the previous speaker said, on a number of occasions over decades this State has gone through severe droughts that have impacted on livestock. The bill brings in a mechanism that breaks the instant intervention of the RSPCA or other authority in the humane disposal of the cattle. It brings in remedial action and a management plan that will help to assist the farmer. Often not only the animals but also the farmers are distressed; many times the property owner is in a severe state of depression because of the situation. This proposal will allow someone to step in and help the owner to come up with a management plan and hopefully save many stock. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.31 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in this place on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The shadow Minister with carriage of the matter is the Hon. Steve Whan in the other place. He will probably have more detailed comments to make when the legislation is debated in that place. I can indicate that the Opposition supports this piece of legislation. The bill 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 has been unable to take action in accordance with previous directions to improve their care. Currently, it is very difficult for an RSPCA inspector to remove animals, particularly livestock, from properties. This caused problems during the last drought, with a number of cases of stock eventually being euthanased rather than removed. The object of this bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 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,

(d) to enable the Director-General to delegate the Director general’s powers under the Act.
As I understand it, the RSPCA supports the measures. It believes the measures will assist in overcoming practical difficulties that have been encountered in the past relating to the seizure of animals and their eventual sale. The Opposition supports the bill. As I understand it, we were supposed to be debating the Crime Commission Bill this morning but we are debating this instead because the Government cannot manage its business in the upper House and they have run out of business.
Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) [10.33 a.m.]: I make a short contribution to the debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The bill contains sensible provisions that provide more flexibility to the RSPCA and the department in dealing with what is a very challenging and stressful problem for stock owners in times of drought and for all of those charged with the supervision of the welfare of animals. By providing a more flexible range of responses, it is far more likely that stock can be saved from being put down due to the effects of drought. The RSPCA and the department will have the option of working with the stock owner and providing greater direction and assistance to find an alternative without the need to go to court in order to remove stock and have them sold. The Minister has put forward a sensible provision that will allow the authorities to work with the stock owner rather than have available to them only the single blunt instrument of ordering the destruction of stock once they have reached the point of no return.
It seems sensible to me that we are moving—with the support of the Opposition, I am pleased to add—to provide that extra flexibility and additional option in response to these obviously very stressful circumstances. It will allow a sensible, negotiated and discussed response to be found. I take the point made by the member for Mount Druitt that the bill also provides a check-and-balance mechanism in that this action will not be taken individually by an inspector but by a panel formed to discuss whether it is appropriate, first, to warn the stock owner that the stock may have to be removed if certain actions are not taken, then to give guidance and direction as to how those actions could and should be taken, and finally to decide whether the plan has been followed and the welfare of the stock has been protected through that warning. If not, the panel then has the ability under this legislation to order the removal and sale of stock, to take from the proceeds the costs of the process and then to reimburse the owner with the balance that remains from the sale.
This is a better option than simply giving a warning when stock owners have no means of compliance. Previous speakers have referred to situations where stock owners may try everything in their power to protect their stock but find it impossible to do so given the severity and duration of droughts we sometimes face. They come to the point where all options have been exhausted and the stock have to be destroyed in any case. If this bill protects stock from that outcome and also protects stock owners from having to face that outcome for their stock, it is an option we should support. I commend the Minister for Primary Industries for bringing the bill to the House and for proposing this common-sense step as an option for inspectors who are authorised under the Act to take such action. I welcome the support of the Opposition for the bill and I trust it will receive the support of the House. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [10.38 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The bill will amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The purpose of the Act is to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote their welfare. The Act defines this by requiring the owner or the person responsible for the animal to appropriately care for that animal. As time progresses, our governments, communities and individuals are becoming more aware of their responsibilities to animals and the appropriate levels of care for animals. However, for those who refuse to be responsible pet owners the Act exists to protect their animals and to deal with those people who do not take pet ownership seriously. Offences in the Act that are considered cruel are failure to provide animals with food, drink or shelter and failure to treat animals appropriately or in a humane way. This bill will make amendments to provide preventative measures to manage livestock before the welfare of the stock deteriorates to a level at which it is considered cruel for them to not be destroyed. That the bill will enable measures to be taken before the livestock deteriorate is an important part of these amendments.

The Act currently provides for inspectors to have certain powers in relation to investigating, policing and enforcing laws in cases of animal cruelty. I thank the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League for their ongoing dedication to being our front line in policing animal cruelty. In relation to livestock cases, the inspectors of these organisations must seek advice from the Department of Primary Industries and a Livestock Health and Pest Authority before commencing prosecution action. Currently, unless prosecution action has been taken, the Act does not provide powers for the sale or management of such animals. This often leaves the agency with no alternative but to destroy the stock, which is a sad outcome. The amendments to this bill will introduce an interim mechanism which will provide scope for livestock to be managed as required before enforcement actions are triggered.
The amendments will also provide for the establishment of a panel of experts called the Stock Welfare Panel to investigate and report on the state of and appropriate care for the animal or animals. This bill will allow the director general to issue a notice to the owner or person in charge of the livestock informing them of the intention to seize and sell the stock if actions specified in the notice to improve the welfare of the stock are not taken within the specified time. Under these amendments, the panel will monitor compliance with the notice and will provide recommendations on actions following its expiry. This bill will finally allow for the proceeds of any sale to be used to recoup the costs associated with the care and sale of the stock, and any residual funds will be returned to the owner.

These amendments are practical and will keep costs low for the agencies that would have to care for these animals or, in the worst case, destroy them. The main aim of this bill is to prevent stock from being lost in a cruel and inhumane way. This Government wants to work with farmers towards making sure that livestock welfare and the livelihoods of farmers are the first and foremost priorities. The drought that this State has suffered is fresh in our minds and the devastating cost to livestock and farmers is still felt today. The cost to farmers is not just a monetary one. No farmer wants his stock to suffer: it goes against the grain of farmers’ beliefs. Drought conditions can cause that to occur through no fault of the farmers and that, sadly, puts a lot of undue stress and pressure on farming families. When introducing this bill the Minister mentioned that the outcome for farmers, livestock and surrounding communities had been kept in mind when it was drafted. We must do what we can to prevent trauma such as this from ever again being inflicted on our State. The New South Wales Farmers Association and the RSPCA support these amendments, which will marry the interests of livestock and the livestock industry.

The late Dr Elizabeth Kernohan, a predecessor of mine, is without doubt Camden’s favourite daughter. In 1960 Dr Kernohan received her PhD in agricultural science from the University of Sydney. At that time it was not the norm for a female to enter that profession. Liz lectured in animal husbandry at the university farms and was appointed as a director in 1982. I mention Dr Kernohan not only because of her love for the area and her time spent at the University of Sydney farms in Cobbitty in my electorate, but also because as the former member for Camden she would have endorsed these proposals. With her love and practical understanding of the land and livestock, I am sure she would say that we are on the right track. We are doing everything possible to prevent cruelty to livestock that may occur through circumstances that are often out of a farmer’s control. We are also attempting to do so sympathetically towards the families involved. I know how much Liz was loved and how much her memory is still loved by the people of Camden. I think it only fitting to mention her today.

While we are talking about preventing cruelty to animals, in October Camden Council will run its second annual Paws in the Park fun day. It will be a great day and I encourage all members to attend. The event was started by councillors Debby Dewberry and Lara Symkowiak and was the biggest inaugural day in Camden Council’s history. On the day some 1,500 dogs were taken to the park by some 800 owners. The day brings the whole community together, including the RSPCA, Camden Council and mums and dads. The theme of the event is responsible pet ownership. It emphasises the importance of ensuring that animals are microchipped and desexed and all the other things that incorporate responsible pet ownership. I commend the council and councillors Dewberry and Symkowiak, who will run the event again this year. I know that it will be the same success that it was last year. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill takes a sensible approach to reducing inhumane practices and opens other avenues in the management of livestock that are affected by drought and other such events. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [10.48 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 aims to prevent cruelty to animals and promote the welfare of animals. It does this by requiring a person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. In relation to livestock, the Act provides inspectors with powers in relation to the care of animals, as well as animals that have not been provided with adequate food, drink, shelter or veterinary attention. However, unless prosecution action has been taken, the Act does not provide powers for the sale or management of such animals. This can leave the enforcement agency with no alternative but to humanely destroy livestock. This bill amends the Act to provide an interim mechanism that provides scope for the animals to be managed as required before enforcement actions are triggered.

The amendments will provide for the establishment of a Stock Welfare Panel of experts to investigate and report on the sale of and appropriate care for the animal or animals. The amendment provides for the director general to issue a notice to the owner or person in charge of the livestock informing the owner of the intention to seize and sell the stock if actions specified in the notice to improve the welfare are not taken within the time specified on the notice. The amendments also provide the panel with the power to monitor compliance with the notice and provide recommendations on actions following the expiry of the notice. It also provides for the proceeds of the sale of livestock to be used to recoup costs associated with the care and sale of the stock, with any residual funds to be returned to the owner. These amendments will provide preventative measures to manage stock animals before the welfare of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel for them to be kept alive and they have to be destroyed.

Drought is at the heart of this bill. I will share with the House a couple of my experiences. After graduating from university, I worked as a veterinary surgeon in Griffith in the Riverina from 1993 to 1995. During this time Griffith experienced a short, sharp drought. On one occasion I was contacted by the local RSPCA office to accompany an officer to inspect a horse at Darlington Point. The horse was in a terrible condition and had deteriorated so much that it was suffering from other diseases. The horse had infections in the tendons above its feet to such an extent that to treat it would have been an expensive exercise and potentially prohibitive for the owner.

The situation required the RSPCA officer to enforce the provisions of the Act and insist on the euthanasia of the horse. The owner objected to this action and a heated engagement ensued between the RSPCA officer and the owner. The argument continued to the point that it could have been considered an assault. The owner was understandably upset about having his horse compulsorily euthanased; the RSPCA officer was simply doing her job. The situation could have been avoided by the amendments in this bill. The upshot of the situation was that I was in charge of putting the horse to sleep. The owner was devastated by this act. I feel that the owner was suffering a degree of depression because there was no feed for his stock as a result of the drought. He was doing all he could, but his means were limited.

This is a classic example why this amendment is necessary. If there had not been a third party present—me—that incident could have resulted in a nasty assault being committed on the RSPCA officer. This amendment removes the confrontational situation and provides help to the carer or owner of the animals to manage the process. The House must understand that many farmers suffer from depression during drought. They farm because they like their job and they like the animals. They do not want to see their animals destroyed or the condition of their animals deteriorate. It is a difficult situation for them. I have a good friend in southern New South Wales who generally is the most gregarious, outgoing person one would ever meet. However, during the last extended drought, which fortunately broke 18 months ago, for two years he was undergoing treatment for depression.

His property was not under financial strain, but his depression was caused by the simple day-to-day task of getting out of bed and looking at clear blue skies and red paddocks without a blade of grass. When word got around amongst his friends that he was suffering from a depressive illness, I rang him to ask, “How are you going, mate?” He said, “Struggling”. I said, “Where are things at?” He said, “Well, we’ve had a hundred good years, we’re due for a hundred bad ones”. This conversation exemplifies the mental strain faced by primary producers. Under the old system, the type of situation that broke many of these people was being told by an inspector or a regime that they needed to put their stock to sleep without any capacity for an alternative.

Members of this House are all too familiar with the fact that suicide amongst primary producers increases during periods of drought. The capacity for a less combative relationship, as set out in this bill, is extremely important. The provision that provides for animals to be agisted elsewhere and sold gives primary producers a management tool that previously they did not have as an option. This is an extremely sensible amendment to the bill. The RSPCA understands the value of this measure and supports the amendment. The RSPCA inspectors are at the front line. They have been put in the terrible situation of having to break the hearts of primary producers and potentially worsen their mental condition by enforcing the law. Primary producers have asked for this measure for a long time because it reduces the combative relationship. The implementation of a management tool that covers these situations is an important amendment. I am glad it is supported by all members of the House because it is a sensible improvement to the legislation. I take great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) [10.56 a.m.]: I speak on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012, which amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The aim of the Act is to prevent cruelty to animals and promote the welfare of animals. It does so by requiring a person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. I am confident that every member of this House would support any legislative measure that ensured the humane treatment of animals. I grew up in a family that always had pets and I made sure that my children also had the opportunity to appreciate animals and have them as an integral part of their lives. All pets—dogs, cats, horses, rabbits—provide children with the opportunity to understand the needs of animals and the responsibility involved in caring for them and, importantly, the opportunity to develop a special bond with animals that they will value for a lifetime.

Both my father and grandfather were local primary producers and also the local butchers on Kangaroo Island, where I was raised. As a result, I acquired a genuine understanding of the importance of tending to livestock. Our family had a farm out of town where we stocked sheep, pigs, cattle and poultry. We always ensured the animals were in good health and provided with clean and adequate conditions. I have very fond memories of working alongside my father and grandfather looking after our wide range of stock. Unfortunately, not all stock is cared for optimally. Often that is because the farmers or primary producers are going through difficult times as a result of drought. It is often no fault of the farmers, and they will do whatever they can to make sure their livestock is kept in optimum conditions.

The aim of the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act is to prevent any cruelty to animals. It does so by requiring a person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. In relation to livestock, the Act provides inspectors with powers in relation to the care of animals whose welfare has been inadequate. Currently, unless prosecution action has been taken, the Act does not provide powers for the sale or management of such animals. This often leads to no alternative for enforcement agencies, including the RSPCA, other than to humanely destroy the livestock. It is acknowledged that this is a limitation within the Act and the amendments in this bill address these shortcomings. As highlighted by previous speakers, the bill will deliver flexibility and scope so that the destruction of livestock is the last option.

The bill will amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to ensure, before enforcement actions are triggered, that animals are treated humanely. It is very sensible legislation that will benefit the welfare of stock animals, particularly in regional areas. The Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson, is to be commended for taking this much-needed step to amend the Act. It should be noted that the amendments relate to stock animals, which are defined in the Act as cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, goats and deer, and that the powers of the director general to authorise seizure and sale or disposal will be used only in relation to animals that are kept on land that is rateable by a Livestock Health and Pest Authority.
There are four key provisions in the legislation: the establishment of a Stock Welfare Panel, which I will provide more details on shortly; the issuance of a notice by the Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services; the monitoring of compliance with the issued notice; and the distribution of the proceeds of any sale of stock that have been seized. The Stock Welfare Panel will consist of an inspector, at least one officer of the department with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management, at least one representative with similar experience from a Livestock Health and Pest Authority, and, additionally, any other person as the regulations may prescribe. The panel will assess and report to the director general on the state of appropriate care for an animal and any other matters concerning its welfare.
This amending bill will ensure that stock involved in welfare cases are either restored to good health or sold. It aims to prevent situations in which the condition of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that the only humane thing to do is destroy them. Based on the panel’s report, if the director general issues an official warning the panel will both monitor and, on expiry of the period of compliance, assess the status of the animals and report back to the director general. An official warning is a written notice to either the owner of the animal or the person who is in charge of the animal. The written notice will indicate to the owner the director general’s intention to authorise the seizure and disposal of the animal if the action outlined in the notice has not been taken within the period required by the notice. The amendments also will allow an inspector, for the purpose of the panel’s assessment, to enter any land on which an animal is kept to examine the animal.
The inspector also will be able to seize and dispose of an animal in accordance with new section 24Q of the legislation. New section 24R of the legislation provides details associated with the recovery of costs of seizure and disposal of an animal or animals that have been incurred as a result of an official warning. If the affected animal or animals are sold the disposal costs will be applied, and the balance of the proceeds of the sale will be paid to the former owner. I know that the Minister is committed to ensuring the highest possible animal welfare standards in New South Wales. While a vast majority of our farmers take good care of their animals, there are exceptions and circumstances in which that is not possible. As a Government, it is our responsibility to make the legislative changes that will avoid the unnecessary destruction of animals. I note that the Minister in her second reading speech acknowledged the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] and the NSW Farmers Association. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [11.02 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012, which requires a person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. The bill addresses the sale and management of livestock that have not been provided with enough food, drink, shelter or veterinary treatment. In the past, without prosecution action, the enforcement agency sometimes would have no option but to destroy livestock humanely. The bill amends the legislation to provide ways for abused livestock to be managed before enforcement actions are undertaken. This is a preventative measure to protect livestock from reaching the stage at which it is considered to be more humane to destroy livestock than to keep them alive and for them to suffer. Recent visions from other countries showing the inhumane slaughter of Australian cattle has led to universal outrage and has been recognised as unacceptable. There was footage of cattle being abused, stabbed in the eyes, trampled and lashed several times with blunt knives. The concerns of the New South Wales community over those images were noted.
A review of the legislation has led to the introduction of this amending bill. While extensive fines of up to $22,000 for persons and $110,000 for corporations and jail terms of up to five years already exist in New South Wales, the Government recognised a gap when it came to the treatment of livestock before enforcement actions. Recognising the value of animals and understanding the very basic fact that they, like human beings, have a nervous system and feel pain, the Government felt strongly that it should act to ensure that livestock are treated in a proper and humane manner. The establishment of a panel of experts, which will be known as the Stock Welfare Panel, is another measure to alert producers in primary industries that inhumane treatment of animals will not be taken lightly.
The Stock Welfare Panel will be given powers to investigate and report on the state and proper care of animals. The director general will also be able to issue a notice to the person in charge of livestock to seize and/or sell stock if conditions to improve the welfare of the stock are not taken within a specified period. Upon expiration of the period specified for compliance, the panel will provide a further report on the result of its monitoring and suggest the most appropriate action to be taken in relation to the animal. That will ensure that animals are not put down because their condition has deteriorated and at the same time gives producers an opportunity to maintain their cattle by improving their level of care. It is also an opportunity for producers to become more educated about more effective and humane ways of caring for livestock. Greater education will, in turn, lead to improved standards and prevention of cruelty.
The Stock Welfare Panel will monitor compliance with this notice. Compliance monitoring is the heartbeat of any successful measure put in place through legislation. Without it, there is room for mistreatment of stock to go undetected. Animals deserve to be treated humanely. Now that many animals are cared for by machines and there is less personal contact, the animals are regarded as resources to be harvested rather than as living creatures that are capable of being abused, both physically and mentally. It has become more acceptable to harm animals because they are less able to portray their pain or sadness. There is no justification for cruelty or abuse of defenceless animals in human care. Humanity must be shown to all creatures. That is why the director general will have the power to authorise an inspector to seize and dispose of an animal if, after considering the panel’s report on compliance with the official warning, the director general is satisfied that the notice has not been complied with and that the animal remains distressed or is likely to become distressed. For the reasons I have stated, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.09 a.m.]: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 aims to prevent cruelty to animals and promote the welfare of animals. It does this by requiring the person in charge of an animal to care for it appropriately. As to livestock, the Act gives inspectors certain powers in relation to the care of animals that have not been provided with adequate food, drink, shelter or veterinary treatment. The amendments in this bill provide for the establishment of a panel of experts to investigate and report on the state and appropriate care of animals across New South Wales. It is hoped that this panel, known as the Stock Welfare Panel, has a greater knowledge of the prevention of cruelty to animals than directors currently serving on the Veterinary Practitioners Board. While I am speaking to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012, I will refer to the Veterinary Practice Regulation, which has placed the humane treatment of animals in jeopardy due to a recent prosecution of a veterinarian by the Veterinary Practitioners Board.
In February 2010 the Court of Appeal denied the right of a person known as Dr Polglaze, a constituent of mine, to be heard on a matter in which he was ordered to pay a penalty following his prosecution by the Veterinary Practitioners Board. The denial to be heard was based on the court’s belief that the matter was trivial. It was a trivial matter, which I will outline in detail. This followed a finding by the Veterinary Practitioners Board, amended by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, that Dr Polglaze had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to constantly upgrade his estimated costs during a euthanasia procedure on an animal he was treating. My personal opinion, and that of many veterinary practitioners I have been associated with, is that it would be negligent of any veterinary practitioner to interrupt a procedure he was undertaking when caring for an animal.
In September 2007 Dr Polglaze, in his capacity as a veterinary surgeon, was called upon to treat a very sick dog and was requested by the owners to euthanase the animal. Their usual practitioner, who was unavailable at the time, recommended to the owners that Dr Polglaze treat the animal. Following an inspection of the animal and an assessment of the medical history that was disclosed—which was not completely accurate—Dr Polglaze proceeded to euthanase the dog. However, he experienced a great deal of difficulty due to the dog having been given unauthorised medication by the owner—a narcotic that was antagonistic to the procedure being undertaken. The dog had a violent reaction to the euthanasia drugs administered by Dr Polglaze because of the other narcotic that had been administered prior to the treatment and not identified to him. This required substantial additional time and medication over and above what would normally be required to euthanase an animal. For the record, the additional time—some 40-odd minutes—and medication cost an additional $135.

Subsequently the owners went to the Veterinary Practitioners Board with a list of complaints regarding the euthanasia procedure. The board raised the notion that clause 16 of the regulation should be interpreted in such a way that a veterinarian must give cost estimates at all times during a procedure. The precedent has now been set that, regardless of the procedures being undertaken and the services being performed, a veterinary practitioner is required to stop treatment if any perceived additional costs are incurred. That is utterly ridiculous; clause 16 of the regulation should never have been interpreted in that way. For the benefit of the Hansard record, I point out that clause 16 of the Veterinary Practice Regulation 2006 states:

A veterinary practitioner must, where it is practicable to do so and before providing veterinary services in relation to an animal, inform the person responsible for the care of the animal of:

(a) the likely extent and outcome of the veterinary services, and

(b) the estimated cost of those services.
That means when a veterinarian is called to perform a service on an animal he must provide, to the best of his ability, what he believes to be the appropriate treatment and state what the likely outcome will be and the estimated cost. However, as we all know, animals and people are all different. Would a doctor who is operating on the brain of a human being and who experiences complications during that intricate surgery halt the procedure, and place that person’s life at risk, so as to phone the person’s relatives to tell them that it may cost an additional $135? That is the situation facing every practising veterinary practitioner in New South Wales, regardless of the procedure they are undertaking, because of this ludicrous precedent set by the Veterinary Practitioners Board.
Dr Geoff Lee: Shame. Good point.
Mr RAY WILLIAMS: It is a shameful point. As I said, the owners subsequently complained to the Veterinary Practitioners Board. The board raised the notion that the regulation should be interpreted in such a way that a veterinary practitioner must give estimates of costs at all times during a procedure, which is ludicrous. In this case, the proposition was that there was an opportunity to give an updated cost estimate between administering the sedative injections. Normally only one is required. This is despite the fact that Dr Polglaze had experienced extreme difficulties throughout the procedure because other drugs had been administered previously to the dog. It was also found that any part of the procedure that was not specified in the original estimate to the owners should be regarded as a separate, additional service. The absurdity of this approach is self-evident, as it entails surgeons who encounter difficulties having to stop and produce a new estimate and obtain approval before proceeding. In the meantime, the rationale is that the operation simply stops. One may ask: If approval is not forthcoming then what will happen, given the animal is beyond recovery?
Current regulations require a practitioner to give an estimate of costs prior to undertaking any procedure. However, it has never been suggested as a possible interpretation of clause 16 of the regulation that costs should be reassessed continually during a procedure if difficulties are encountered—and nor should it. Indeed, if the board had changed its interpretation of the regulation it should have notified practitioners of that change as a matter of procedural fairness prior to instituting proceedings for an alleged breach. Even more significant is the fact that the board has never promulgated its decision to practising veterinarians nor advised them of its consequences or that the decision is binding upon them, hence requiring compliance. It is also unacceptable that the board, which is supposed to be a model litigant, would raise such a ridiculous proposition in order to secure a conviction against a veterinary practitioner. I refer to the New South Wales Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation, which states:
1.2 This Policy applies to civil claims … involving the State or its agencies including litigation before courts, tribunals, inquiries and in arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution processes.
The nature of the obligation is in paragraph 3.1, which states:

3.1 The obligation to act as a model litigant requires more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations. Essentially it requires that the State and its agencies act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
Paragraph 3.2 states:
The obligation requires that the State and its agencies, act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation by:

(f) not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim;
The Veterinary Practitioners Board did exactly that: It pushed Dr Polglaze until he had no further funding. The board punished him by applying a ludicrous claim 24 hours before the final Supreme Court action. This ludicrous claim requires any veterinarian in New South Wales—I repeat, any veterinarian in New South Wales—conducting any procedure on an animal to stop at any time when they are about to exceed the services prescribed. If at any point vets working on a live sedated or non-sedated animal must increase the services or drugs, they must stop what they are doing and contact the owner of the animal before continuing the procedure. That is the most absurd action ever undertaken. Because that is the Veterinary Practitioners Board’s interpretation of the regulation, animal cruelty is increased—which was never meant to occur. The board should have notified practising veterinarians of its interpretation, but that was never done. I do not believe any member of this House, regardless of political persuasion, believes the regulation that passed this Parliament in 2006 was ever meant to be interpreted in that manner.

Since I raised this matter in Parliament I have been inundated with correspondence from many dozens of eminent practising veterinary professionals across New South Wales. In my 50 years experience with thoroughbred racehorses, I have had the absolute pleasure of dealing with some of the most eminent veterinary practitioners in this State. I speak of none other than Professor David Hutchins, who was responsible for setting up the Camden equine facility, which continues to operate. It was the first facility outside the University of Sydney to deal with equine procedures on behalf of the racing world. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the member for Wollondilly in whose electorate that exceptional facility is located. Other highly qualified veterinarians include Trevor Robson, John Parbery, Derek Major, Ian Duckworth, Rob Watkins, Jack Francis and Arthur Sternhell. The list continues of people with whom my family and I have had the great pleasure of working during some of the most strenuous and awkward procedures on animals. They would think the process suggested by the Veterinary Practitioners Board is ludicrous.

The legislation needs to be changed now because of the misinterpretation by the Veterinary Practitioners Board and the punishment it has dealt to a good veterinarian who believes in the humane treatment of animals. When Dr Polglaze was questioned about the additional costs by the dog’s owners, he waived them. He acted in good faith and euthanased the animal. This regulation is being interpreted by a group of people who I suggest are questionable. An inquiry should be conducted regarding those board members who made this decision as well as the current board members who supported the position and followed with this prosecution. The Minister needs to drag this regulation back to Parliament for amendment so that it can never be construed or perceived to be interpreted in that manner for the benefit of all veterinarians practising across New South Wales.

Dr GEOFF LEE (Parramatta) [11.23 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 and note also the Opposition’s support for it. The objects of the bill are:

(d) to enable the Director-General to delegate the Director-General’s powers under the Act.
Most farmers take good care of their livestock and are passionately committed to their vocation of raising animals humanely; they have an emotional and financial attachment to their business. Most of those farming businesses are intergenerational, with many individuals committed to farming in the most sustainable manner. This bill seeks to address the emotional, social and economic issues of primary production and its vital effect on our great local rural communities. Australia is a place of fire, floods and droughts. Indeed, as one of the driest continents in the world it often experiences extended periods of drought. This makes farming particularly tough, pushing it through the well-known boom-and-bust cycles. I am a former horticulturalist and can attest to the effect of environmental conditions on businesses. The breeding of animals is especially important as their welfare is paramount to the business; as well, there is the personal attachment in caring for them.

This bill addresses the results of deteriorated farming stock to the stage where welfare becomes an issue. Currently, if an enforcement agency 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 as to the best way to manage the stock. Current provisions enable the agency to issue a notice, for example, directing owners to feed stock or to apply appropriate veterinary treatment. In most cases the person will comply with the directions, and the condition of the stock—sheep, cattle or another animal—will improve and the matter is resolved. Unfortunately, in some cases, people may be unwilling or unable to follow the directions of inspectors in their attempts to assist owners or those in charge of providing proper husbandry and the animals continue to deteriorate. This could result in a vicious cycle of animals continuing to deteriorate and the determination may be made that those animals be humanely destroyed as it would be cruel to keep them alive.

If animals are seized, an inspector may only retain possession for up to 60 days or until any legal proceedings that were commenced are finalised. This can be very expensive not only for the Government and the inspector, but also certainly for the farmer if a cattle herd or sheep flock is involved. The current Act contains no provision for the sale of seized stock without prosecution first having been taken or without involving the court. Presently the process continues in a cyclical manner. If the stock is returned to the owner or person in charge and the person continues to be recalcitrant to the point that the welfare of the animal is again compromised, the stock is seized, dies or has to be destroyed. That is a poor outcome for everyone and results in considerable stress and anxiety for those involved and the local community. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 will provide for early intervention when stock animals are suffering, distressed or are likely to become distressed as well as their management and/or sale.

The bill provides for an expert panel to be convened that will give advice to the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries as to the most appropriate way to manage the animals without having to immediately instigate a prosecution. When all else fails the bill provides for the animals to be seized and sold and the proceeds, less the costs incurred, paid to the owner, thereby providing a better outcome for animal welfare. I note the comment earlier by the member for Mount Druitt regarding the powers of the RSPCA. This bill provides checks and balances in terms of its panel of operation. I am sure all members agree that the work of the RSPCA is highly respected in the community. This bill provides for the RSPCA and other authorities to work together with the department, the local community and the owner or carer of the animals. The panel of experts will deliberate and advise and make recommendations to the director general.

The bill will provide checks and balances through its deliberations and provide essential recommendations. An individual will no longer be solely responsible for decision-making. This bill seeks to address animal welfare, which is certainly an issue. Farmers are dedicated to the care and protection of their livestock but during difficult times—drought, fire or flood—they have to buy feed or water, which quite often they cannot afford. They face a dilemma: They want to care for their animals but they are unable to afford the cost in doing so. The bill addresses decreasing the compliance cost to ensure that proper animal welfare procedures are in place. It provides a mechanism for the livestock industry to improve its management of stock.

The bill is not just about being able to destroy the animals humanely if required but also providing management plans to provide the best outcome for the livestock. Most farmers provide excellent care for and have emotional, psychological and financial attachments to their livestock. In difficult situations farmers can become depressed and distressed by the enormous pressure of managing their farms. That pressure is exacerbated by difficult weather conditions, such as a five-year drought and the need to buy feed and water. One can only imagine how difficult it would be to wake up each morning knowing you are unable to pay the bills or the mortgage, let alone care for the stock. For those reasons, I commend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 to the House.

Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [11.33 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Australia has one of the most variable rainfall climates in the world. Over the long term we have about three good years and three bad years in a 10-year period. During climatic extremes, whether it is droughts or flooding rains, those on the land feel it most. Agriculture suffers first and most severely. 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. These fluctuations have many causes, but the strongest is the southern oscillation: its best known extreme is El Niño.

In recent years a strong El Niño resulted in a nine-year drought in New South Wales and across the eastern seaboard—it was the worst drought in more than a century. Some droughts are long-lived, some are short and intense causing significant damage, some 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 are therefore harder to forecast. 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.

However, cases do arise where livestock owners are unable or unwilling to feed and manage their livestock adequately and livestock welfare can become an issue. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 introduces provisions that will allow earlier intervention to avoid stock animals having to be destroyed because they are in such poor condition that it is considered cruel to keep them alive. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 provides for the establishment of a panel of experts to investigate and report on the condition of livestock that have been identified as requiring care and to work with the person in charge of the livestock to return that livestock to health. The bill also provides for the issue of an official warning notice by the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries informing the stock owner, or person in charge of the stock, of the intention to seize and dispose of the livestock if specified actions to improve the welfare of the livestock are not taken within certain time frames.

The panel will monitor compliance with the notice and provide recommendations on actions following the expiry of the notice. If appropriate action is not taken the livestock can be seized and sold or otherwise disposed of. The amendments in the bill will provide preventive measures to manage stock animals before the welfare of the stock deteriorates to such an extent that it is considered cruel for them to be kept alive and they have to be destroyed. If New South Wales enters another period of long and deep drought and circumstances on a property raise welfare concerns, this bill will prove very valuable in achieving optimal animal welfare outcomes. The clear intent of the bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues when the person in charge is willing to take action to rehabilitate the animals. The bill will provide more options and a better outcome for livestock welfare. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [11.41 a.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Animal welfare is an issue important to us all. The community has high expectations that government, working with animal welfare agencies, will make sure that animals are cared for and treated humanely. We have only to remember the community’s reaction to the mistreatment of cattle at a western Sydney abattoir in February of this year to know how strongly the community feels about this issue. Several Acts help to ensure that community expectations on animal welfare are met, the principal Act being the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 seeks to prevent acts of cruelty to animals by ensuring that animals are provided with proper care and humane treatment. The Act does this by regulating the treatment of all animals. This includes companion animals such as cats and dogs, farm animals, and animals used in sport, recreation, film and television. The Act deters cruelty to or the mistreatment of all animals. It does so by imposing fines and in some cases imprisonment. It also sets out offences for acts of cruelty, abandonment of an animal and unacceptable transport conditions. The Act is enforced by the NSW Police Force and organisations approved by the Minister for Primary Industries, namely, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known to all of us as the RSPCA, and the Animal Welfare League. Their officers are authorised to enter land, seize animals that have been mistreated and commence proceedings to prosecute offences against the Act.

Inspectors from the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League also provide guidance and education to animal owners, attend to sick or injured animals that have been abandoned or are stray, and carry out inspections of places in which animals are kept, such as, abattoirs, animal boarding establishments, pet shops and saleyards. This problem is widespread and not isolated to rural and regional areas in New South Wales in periods of drought. As a member who represents areas on Sydney’s fringe, I have a number of small acreages, agribusiness enterprises and hobby farm activities within my electorate. Over the years I have dealt with a number of complaints from constituents who had either small animal herds, such as goats, alpacas and sheep, or horses on small acreage allotments. In some instances ageing animals or animals being rehabilitated can appear to a casual observer, such as a neighbouring property owner or people driving past the paddock, to be malnourished or neglected and abused.

In most cases the appearances of older or sick animals to a casual observer, in the absence of any facts of the management of the situation, are not cases of malnourishment, neglect or abuse, and should be addressed properly through the provisions that strengthen the accountability and consultation required. It is important that we have a strong set of natural justice principles and procedural fairness built into the process that gives certainty to all stakeholders that the investigative process is comprehensive, robust and fair. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and her staff on rectifying a serious problem with the Act that has caused undue stress on many people who have been accused of animal cruelty and suffered unnecessary humiliation, shame and financial costs to defend their innocence and reputation. The legislation will also help to alleviate the suffering endured by an old or sick animal being removed from a property and travelling long distances in animal transports to other areas of Sydney, only to be diagnosed as having nothing wrong with it other than its age and then having to be returned to the owner’s property. It is only after thorough investigation that it is shown that the owner was looking after the animal responsibly and with care.

Both the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League work to prevent acts of cruelty to all animals, large and small. The RSPCA and its predecessor, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, have been promoting the care and protection of animals for nearly 140 years. The RSPCA operates more than 28 branches throughout New South Wales, and it is staffed by volunteers who dedicate their time to the protection and care of animals. The RSPCA also operates more than 11 shelters throughout New South Wales that provide accommodation and care to sick, injured, abandoned or unwanted animals. In 2010-11, the RSPCA cared for more than 44,000 animals that were unwanted, sick, injured or stray. This included a diverse range of animals such as dogs, goats, horses, emus and kangaroos. During that period, care was provided to more than 20,000 dogs and 20,000 cats. The RSPCA also found new homes for around 5,000 of those dogs and 4,500 of those cats.

The Animal Welfare League is another key organisation that has been looking after sick, injured or neglected animals. The Animal Welfare League has been performing this role for more than 50 years. The organisation operates two shelters and has 13 branches across New South Wales. Similar to the RSPCA, branches of the Animal Welfare League are operated solely by volunteers. In 2010-11, the Animal Welfare League received more than 2,000 reports of suspected cases of animal cruelty. During that period, 113 animals were seized or surrendered to inspectors from the Animal Welfare League. In the same period the Animal Welfare League played an important role in helping to evacuate animals during a flood emergency in northern New South Wales. This occurred in January 2011 when heavy rains caused flooding in the Moree region and the evacuation of more than 1,000 people. It was also necessary to evacuate domestic animals, and inspectors from the Animal Welfare League worked with the State Emergency Service and the Department of Primary Industries to evacuate and find temporary homes for those animals.

The RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League play an important role in protecting animals that have been abandoned or neglected. The Government recognises the valuable work of these organisations in preventing acts of cruelty and mistreatment and acknowledges the important role of the organisations and their volunteers in promoting the welfare of animals in this State. The intent of this bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues when the person in charge is willing to take action, or already is taking action to rehabilitate those animals. For those reasons I strongly commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAI ROWELL (Wollondilly) [11.49 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. Agriculture plays a vital role in the New South Wales economy. Agriculture contributes around $8.4 billion to the New South Wales economy every year. Our livestock, wool and dairy industries account for almost half of 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. Our wool and dairy industries are worth $641 million and $522 million respectively. These are industries that we should all be proud of and we must continue to support, not only for the money that they contribute to our economy but also for the jobs and communities they create in our regional areas. There are 21,306 livestock farms in New South Wales, many of them in my electorate, as well as 1,425 dairy farms.

To ensure the continuation of the New South Wales livestock industry and the high standard of meat, dairy and wool that we produce, we need to take the welfare of our livestock seriously. Animals that are mistreated are not as productive as those that are not and they reproduce much less. In simple terms, unhealthy and unhappy animals produce poor-quality meat and dairy products. I support the important amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 because they will lead to better animal welfare outcomes on farms in New South Wales in circumstances in which neglect is an issue. The clear intent of the bill is to minimise the need for compliance action in relation to stock welfare issues when 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 cared for adequately. 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—which will provide advice to the director general on the situation and recommend a course of action.

The end effect of the amendments is two-fold. First, the amendments will serve as a deterrent to farmers and other animal owners. If they do not care for their animals, the animals can ultimately be seized and sold. Secondly, the amendments will protect neglected animals from being returned to neglectful owners. Too often animal welfare inspectors must stand by and watch neglected animals continue to deteriorate before they can take action. Sadly, this can often result in the animal being destroyed. The New South Wales Government has been working to protect our livestock, and, indeed, the entire agriculture industry. from a range of threats. Recently introduced changes to our biosecurity laws will go a long way towards protecting livestock from the spread of disease. These changes are just part of the Government’s plan to improve biosecurity in New South Wales.

The member for Hawkesbury mentioned the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, which is a great facility in my electorate. The new $57 million Centre for Biosecurity at Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute was opened on 16 July at Menangle in Sydney’s south-west—in the heartland of Wollondilly. The facility will spearhead the efforts of the Department of Primary Industries to safeguard the State’s $9 billion primary industries sector from devastating pests and diseases. The new facility is crucial in maintaining the capability of the Department of Primary Industries to quickly diagnose exotic and emerging animal diseases, such as swine flu, equine influenza and Hendra virus. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries research and diagnostic animal health laboratories and the specialist virology laboratory provide a major defence against livestock diseases.

Investigating the cause, spread and control of disease in livestock, particularly from a herd or flock perspective, are among the highest priorities. The opening of Australia’s most modern laboratories at Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute dramatically increases the capacity to quickly diagnose and research exotic and emerging diseases, which will assist control and prevention. In a show of support for the role the institute plays in protecting agricultural industries and our animals, both the Premier and the Minister for Primary Industries attended the opening of the laboratories. More than 200 people turned up, 180 of them staff. It was fantastic to hear the staff tell the Premier and the Minister how they appreciated that this Government was getting on with the job and how they valued the institute. We all know the great work the institute did when New South Wales was struck by the equine influenza; many blood samples and swabs from across the State were tested there.

The Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute has stated that for the first time it is now in a position to handle an escalation of multiple outbreaks of diseases at the same time—for example, Hendra virus occurring at the same time as the avian influenza, foot and mouth disease or a plant disease such as citrus canker. Not that anyone is excited about that prospect, but it is ultimately reassuring to know that the capability and resources exist. It is due to the hard work of the Minister that we have that capability. Walking down the vast 100-metre long main corridor from the virology laboratory through the plant health precinct, once can see that if such multiple disease events occur, the bench space, the quarantining containment facilities and the necessary equipment are in place to accommodate the additional labour force that would be required.

Dr Peter Kirkland, who is the virology laboratory leader at the institute, said that current turnaround times for tests associated with significant disease outbreaks can now be maintained at much higher throughput rates and that this substantially greater capacity can also be confidently sustained with greater safety when handling high-risk diseases such as the Hendra virus. I put on record my praise and admiration for Dr Kirkland, whom I met recently. He is doing a fantastic job and is well respected in the Wollondilly community, both in his professional capacity and personally. New high-level quarantining containment facilities expand the institute’s capacity to handle large-scale emergency animal disease outbreaks, with the highest level—QC2—second only to the Australian Animal Health Laboratory in Geelong. For livestock, the State Veterinary Disease Laboratory, for example, offers more than 200 routine diagnostic tests and performs more than 200,000 tests a year.

The laboratory can perform around the clock and is currently processing 100 accessions daily, with a routine turnaround of about three to five days. Those statistics are absolutely amazing. The institute’s scientists have repeatedly gained worldwide recognition in the scientific community and they collaborate nationally and internationally with universities and medical and agricultural institutes. The institute’s services are also linked to key research, extension and regulatory programs being conducted at other locations in the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries’ statewide laboratory and field network. The Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute has world-class facilities such as the electromagnetic microscope for research and diagnosis. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries’ research and diagnostic animal health laboratories and the specialist virology laboratory provide a major defence against livestock diseases.

The institute’s electron microscope unit provides a statewide service for the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. It is available for urgent disease diagnosis in both animals and plants. This is fantastic work being done at our local facility and I commend the investment in that facility by the O’Farrell-Stoner Government. Not only does the facility provide 180 jobs but it also protects our agriculture, our animals and our livestock. The research undertaken by the facility in preventing diseases is second to none. The New South Wales Government is also working towards reducing the number of pest animals that spread disease and cause serious injury and death to thousands of animals every year. This legislation shows that this Government is serious about the prevention of cruelty to animals and providing clear directions on actions to be taken. I know that the people in the field and the industry welcome this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [11.58 a.m.]: The Greens support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The change to the legislation is modest, but I will ask the Minister and her staff if reasonable amendments could be considered when the bill is transmitted to the upper House. First, I acknowledge and thank the Minister’s staff and the staff of the Department of Primary Industries for their work in putting together the bill. They do a significant amount of work and we should acknowledge the role of those who make a significant effort to improve the situation in New South Wales, particularly the staff in our great public service. The objects of the bill are fully supported. I have done a great deal of work on animal welfare issues because, of course, animal welfare is at the heart of a humane and just society.

During my time as a councillor and mayor of Leichhardt council, I worked hard on finding ways to reduce the amount of companion animals in our shelters and pounds that had to be euthanased. I met with the Minister some time ago to talk about the issue of truth in labelling, in particular in relation to free-range eggs. The issue of how we label free-range meats and other products is also significant. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill is important and I understand that a range of groups were consulted on it. I acknowledge the work of the animal welfare organisations I have worked with, including the Humane Society International, Humane Choice, Animals Australia, Animal Liberation, the consumer group Choice with which I worked closely on the issue of free-range labelling, and the Free-range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia. I congratulate the animal welfare and consumer groups that work to fight for better protection for animals.
The object of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 in a range of ways. I will not read out the briefing note that goes through the details of the bill, but I will take this opportunity to raise a few specific issues. The bill is primarily aimed at cases of offences for failure to provide animals with food, drink or shelter. During her second reading speech the Minister referred to drought situations as times when these provisions are needed. We understand there is a real need for this legislation, but I note that the Legislative Review Committee commented:
Although this provision provides for the denial of compensation where livestock has been unilaterally seized and disposed, the Committee notes the overarching public interest to prevent and stop animal distress. In such circumstances, the Committee does not consider this provision to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.
It is important to acknowledge that, because we do not want to see the trespassing on personal rights in any bill. We want to make sure that type of approach is not taken. However, it is clear that there is an overarching public interest in this matter. I also ask the Minister in her speech in reply to clarify an issue in relation to the Stock and Welfare Panel. I understand the panel will include an inspector authorised under the Act. Does that mean there will always be a representative from the RSPCA or Animal Welfare League on the Stock Welfare Panel?
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Yes.
Mr JAMIE PARKER: The Minister has indicated that is correct. I thank her for her response. One of the enforcement agencies for the Act, the Animal Welfare League, in the past has talked about the challenges of entering structures. Section 24P (5) (a) says that an inspector can enter any land on which the animal is kept. The issue is that the section excludes any type of dwelling. For example, there have been situations where under the current provisions inspectors are permitted to enter a property boundary but are not permitted to enter a dwelling. Obviously the definition of “dwelling” is open to interpretation. The restricted circumstances for entering a dwelling, which are appropriate, are contained in section 24E of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which provides:
(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:
(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment.
These restrictions are appropriate to enter a dwelling, but I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be appropriate to amend section 25P (5) (a) to read “enter any land or structure on that land where animals are kept that is not a dwelling.” The entering of a dwelling is not an issue, but at the moment a structure is not able to be entered. The inspector should be able to enter a structure on the land where animals are kept that is not a dwelling. I would like the Minister to clarify that distinction if possible. Section 24T (1) (d) again refers to the panel. This panel has a regulatory function to give advice on the welfare of the livestock for the purposes of enforcement. That is a positive measure that is supported, but the provision is broad in terms of providing for the regulations to allow any person to be invited onto the panel.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: By “structure” did you mean a hay shed or something like that?

Mr JAMIE PARKER: Yes, any structure, and I ask for such clarification to be included in the provision. For example, it would not be appropriate to invite stakeholders in an advocacy role onto the panel. In her second reading speech, the Minister flagged that a representative from an organisation such as the New South Wales Farmers Association could be invited onto the panel if that was the desire of the stock owner. If the panel has a regulatory and enforcement function, surely it would be better that the persons invited onto the panel are people with animal welfare expertise. That is consistent with the Minister’s suggestion that the panel could include experts in animal nutrition. I hope that in her speech in reply the Minister will comment on whether section 24T (1) (d) should be amended to read “such other person or persons with expertise in animal welfare”. That will ensure that any additional people brought onto the panel will have animal welfare experience. The final issue concerns section 24O (3), which provides:

For the purposes of this Part, an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury.
The definition in the bill appears to have been drawn from section 24H, which concerns the powers of police officers to detain a vehicle or a vessel. That section specifically applies to a situation where animals are being transported and is rather narrow for the purposes of a bill that applies to a wider range of circumstances. Obviously this bill will pass the lower House, but I again suggest that when it comes before the other place the Minister consider an amendment to insert the words “dehydration, poor body condition” before the words “or significant other injury.” Such an amendment would create a broader definition and complement section 24P, which provides that the director general may issue a warning if an animal is distressed because it has not been provided with the necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: That is all part of the management plan anyway. It is already in there.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I appreciate the Minister’s engagement with this. That is great.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: No, I wrote it.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I understand. That is why I am commending you. In conclusion, I suggest that section 24O (3) be amended to include dehydration and poor body condition when it comes to determining whether an animal is in distress. I also suggest that section 24P (5) (a) be amended for clarification to include that a structure on land that is not a dwelling may be entered. Finally I suggest that section 24T (1) (d) be amended by inserting the words “with expertise in animal welfare” to ensure that the panel’s regulatory function is focused on animal welfare. I acknowledge the work that has gone into this bill and I thank the Minister. I will support the bill. I look forward to the Minister’s comments in reply.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck—Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business) [12.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Barwon, Mount Druitt, Myall Lakes, Macquarie Fields, Charlestown, Liverpool, Hawkesbury, Granville, Port Macquarie, Londonderry, Parramatta, Rockdale, Camden, Riverstone, Wollondilly and Balmain for their contributions to this important debate. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 by introducing preventative measures to better assist both animal welfare agencies and those in charge of livestock. The purpose of the bill is to help manage the welfare of stock animals before their condition deteriorates to the point where they have to be destroyed. Its other primary intent is to minimise the risk of prosecution action being initiated when there is an opportunity to work with the farmer to restore the animal or animals to health.

There have been a number of unfortunate cases in which stock has been destroyed and the owners have been prosecuted for cruelty. Cases that spring readily to mind are those against Ruth Downey, John Hertslet and John and Gordon McClung. This bill and its underpinning policies will provide an alternative process and a clear set of procedures that must be followed when animals have been assessed as being in distress or neglect before prosecution action is undertaken. By enacting these amendments the director general will be given the power to establish, on a case-by-case basis, a Stock Welfare Panel. This expert panel will investigate and report on the condition of livestock that has been identified as requiring care. The panel will assess and determine the condition of the stock, the feed and the pasture availability as well as the seasonal outlook for the livestock. The panel then will make recommendations to the director general on appropriate measures to manage the livestock.

The bill also will introduce new powers for the director general to issue a notice of intention to the person in charge of the livestock. The notice will inform them of the intention to authorise the seizure and sale of the animals if the measures specified in the notice and the management plan are not taken to improve the welfare of the animals. Finally, the bill will provide the director general with the power to authorise the seizure and sale, or other disposal, of livestock in situations in which the owner or person in charge of the livestock has failed to comply with the notice. I appreciate the support of Opposition members who spoke during debate on the bill and note that they do not oppose the amendments.

In relation to the point raised by the member for Mount Druitt, who sought clarification on the checks and balances to be followed before stock are seized and sold, I advise that following notification from an enforcement agency that there is a welfare issue, the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries may establish an expert panel to further assess the situation and work with the person in charge of the animal or animals to rehabilitate them. As a last resort, if the owner is unwilling or incapable of implementing those remedial measures, the panel may recommend that those animals be seized and sold. At that point, the director general may issue another notice providing the owner with further opportunity to care for the animals. If that fails, the director general will be able to authorise an enforcement agency to seize and sell those animals. The amendments will assist animal welfare agencies to achieve the best possible animal welfare outcome in difficult cases. These provisions are a significant addition to the Act and will provide stronger means to prevent cruelty to animals.

In response to the points raised by the member for Balmain, I inform him that “land” is defined to include premises or a vehicle. As I indicated earlier, the term “premises” includes a structure, such as a hay shed. The panel will include representatives from the RSPCA, a representative from the Department of Primary Industries, a representative from a Livestock Health and Pest Authority, a veterinary surgeon, and other members as deemed appropriate. For example, if a farmer is a member of the New South Wales Farmers Association and wants to include a representative from the association, a representative from the association can be a member of the panel. A panel will be able to enter structures such as hay sheds. I am very confident that the matters drawn to my attention by the member for Balmain are well and truly covered by the bill in its present form, so I do not see a need for further amendments.

This bill represents a sensible and practical way forward for people on the land. Sometimes we have particularly hard times in regional New South Wales. The severe impact of 10 years of drought on the southern tablelands and in the central west and the Western Division provides a true indication of the necessity for amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The sensible and practical amendments included in the legislation will go a long way towards assisting our very valuable farming population, ensuring that stock animals are treated with absolute and utmost respect and ensuring that farmers are provided with the assistance they need, particularly in trying times such as during a drought.

Farmers may think that it will rain next month or in a couple of months, but when the rain does not fall pastures do not improve and the situation can become dire very quickly. The Government is breaking with the past when the slaughter of animals was the only option. It was a terrible time for many people who were caught up in the situation. The bill provides for management plans to be implemented on properties and appropriate and sensible action to be undertaken to remediate the situation. If that is not possible, the director general will be empowered by this legislation to seize and sell the stock instead of slaughtering the animals. I very much thank members who participated in the debate for their insights and contributions to this very important amending bill. 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.
Third Reading

Motion by Ms Katrina Hodgkinson agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Hansard
• Hansard overview
• Both Houses by date
• Legislative Council by date
• Legislative Assembly by date
• Other indexes
1. Home
2. Hansard
3. Legislative Council by date
4. 12 September 2012
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012
Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 38 of 47 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers Ajaka The Hon John; Whan The Hon Steve; Blair The Hon Niall; Deputy-President (The Hon Jennifer Gardiner); Secord The Hon Walt; Faehrmann The Hon Cate; Colless The Hon Rick; Fazio The Hon Amanda; Mitchell The Hon Sarah; Gay The Hon Duncan

Business Bill, Second Reading, Motion

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.

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.

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 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 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:

(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
Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 38 of 46 | Next Item »

About this Item
Speakers Gay The Hon Duncan; Faehrmann The Hon Cate; Green The Hon Paul; Colless The Hon Rick; Deputy-President (The Hon Jennifer Gardiner); Mason-Cox The Hon Matthew; Whan The Hon Steve; Buckingham The Hon Jeremy; Chair (The Hon Jennifer Gardiner)

Business Bill, Division, Second Reading, Third Reading, In Committee, Motion, Report Adopted

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Page: 15402

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 September 2012.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [5.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to the debate. Last week when I made my contribution to the debate, I thought it was just going to be one of the contributions to the debate.

The Hon. Walt Secord: It was a great contribution.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It was a great contribution. I modestly acknowledge the interjection made by the Hon. Walt Secord.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Unfortunately, Hansard does not show irony.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My speech was off the cuff. Because the Parliamentary Secretary indicated he was making the second reading speech on my behalf, by making a contribution last week, technically I had begun the reply. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012 makes important amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The purpose of the bill is to help to manage the welfare of stock animals before their condition deteriorates to the point at which they must be destroyed. The situation is distressing for the stock owner and often for the surrounding farming community.
The bill introduces a new mechanism to support the role of animal welfare agencies, such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League. It also will assist those in charge of stock animals to achieve better outcomes in situations in which stock are not receiving adequate care. The bill provides for intervention in stock welfare cases so that the stock either are restored to good health or are sold, with the net proceeds of sale going to the stock owner. It also provides an opportunity to educate and assist the owner or person in charge of stock animals to implement measures to restore the health of stock without the need for prosecutorial action, which is a terrific initiative.
The bill gives the director general the power to establish on a case-by-case basis an expert stock welfare panel. The panel will investigate and report on the condition of livestock that have been identified as requiring care. The panel will assess and determine the condition of the stock, feed and pasture availability as well as the seasonal outlook for the livestock. The panel also will work with the owner or person in charge of the stock to develop a management plan aimed at restoring the stock to good health. The panel will monitor compliance with the management plan and will report to the director general on the measures being taken to manage the livestock, and their success or otherwise.

The bill introduces new powers for the director general to issue an official warning by way of notice to the owner or person in charge of the livestock. An official warning may be issued only after considering the report of the stock welfare panel. An official warning will inform the stock owner or person in charge of the intention to authorise the seizure of the animals if the measures specified in the notice are not taken to improve their welfare. The stock welfare panel will monitor compliance with the measures specified in the official warning notice and will prepare a report for the director general at the expiration of the period specified in the notice. How much more sensible is that than what we saw in a few instances during the recent drought? If the stock owner or person in charge has failed to implement the necessary remedial measures, the bill provides the director general with the power to authorise the seizure and sale, or other disposal, of the livestock. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann, on behalf of The Greens, has foreshadowed five amendments to the bill.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: I am moving only two of them—Nos 1 and 4.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for that information. The first amendment seeks to amend proposed section 24O (3) by inserting the words “dehydration” and “poor body condition” so that the definition of “an animal in distress” means the animal is:
… suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion, dehydration, poor body condition or significant physical injury.

The meaning of “debility” is the state of being weak or feeble. If an animal is suffering from dehydration or poor body condition it is considered to be debilitated. So, we contend the proposed extra words are unnecessary. The second amendment the honourable member was going to move—and which I will address anyway—sought to alter proposed sections 24P (5) (a), 24Q (2) (a) and 24V (2) to make clear that an inspector’s powers to enter land include the power to enter any structure on land where animals are kept that is not a dwelling. As the Minister for Primary Industries noted in the other place, the legal definition of “land” includes structures on the land in question. On this basis, the proposed amendment—which the member has quite properly indicated she will not be moving—is considered unnecessary at this time.

The third amendment proposed by The Greens seeks to amend proposed section 24T (1 ) (d) to provide that the stock welfare panel will consist of any other person or persons with expertise in animal welfare as the regulations may prescribe. This amendment is not supported. We believe it is unnecessary and overly prescriptive. The bill already provides for the Department of Primary Industries and the Livestock, Health and Pest Authority representative to have expertise in animal welfare or livestock management. That is important and it is already there. As a matter of course, at least one representative will be a vet. So, there are three: the Department of Primary Industries representative and the Livestock, Health and Pest Authority representative will have expertise in animal welfare or livestock management, and there will be a vet as well.

Depending on the situation, it may be appropriate for the panel to include a member who has expertise in an area such as financial management, agronomy, social welfare or mental health. All these issues come up from time to time. Situations vary; not every situation is the same. In addition, the farmer may feel more comfortable or less threatened working with a panel if it included the local New South Wales Farmers Association representative, the local stock and station agent or the rural counsellor. That is why it is better to be less prescriptive in this area, to allow these sorts of things to happen.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann raised the issue of Wally’s Piggery and claims the New South Wales Food Authority has not inspected the premises since 1993. It is incorrect for The Greens to suggest that there ought to have been greater oversight by the New South Wales Food Authority of Wally’s Piggery. The New South Wales Meat Industry Authority, one of the Food Authority’s predecessor organisations, has already prosecuted Valenti Perenc—the piggery owner—for a range of offences committed on 10 July 1993, including operating a slaughterhouse without a licence and threatening an authorised officer of the authority.

The powers used to investigate these matters can be exercised only when the authorised officer forms a reasonable belief that the premises or vehicle is being used in connection with the sale of food, the handling of food intended for sale or to hold documents relating to these activities. However, neither the Food Authority nor its predecessor, the Meat Industry Authority, has the power to enter a piggery or any other farm unless there is a good reason for doing this. I would have thought that is something The Greens would have supported.

These powers continue to be available to authorised officers of the New South Wales Food Authority and there is no question about the authority’s commitment to exercise these powers whenever it has a reasonable belief that serious offences such as those reported at Wally’s Piggery may be occurring. The authority actively investigates any complaints about unlicensed food or slaughtering operations and will issue fines or prosecute when evidence exists of illegal activity. The Food Authority did just that as soon as it became aware of the video footage on 2 August this year. I remind the House that the NSW Police Force, the Department of Primary Industries, the Food Authority and the RSPCA conducted a joint investigation of Wally’s Piggery the next day. But to suggest that the Food Authority should in some way have been monitoring the operation of a piggery, which may or may not be raising livestock that would eventually become food—and therefore properly within the Food Authority’s remit—is nonsense.

This Government takes animal welfare issues very seriously. That is why we have introduced this bill and why we have allocated $7.5 million to the RSPCA for the redevelopment of the Yagoona shelter. The money is allocated over the 2011-2013 funding periods. These amendments will assist animal welfare agencies such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League to achieve the best possible outcome in animal welfare cases. They are a significant addition to the Act and will provide stronger means to prevent cruelty to animals, but in doing so will provide a commonsense and caring way out for the animals and, in particular, some of the families and owners involved. 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.
In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.30 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2012-125A:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 24O (3), line 18. Insert “, dehydration, poor body condition” after “exhaustion”.

I indicate at the outset that I will not be moving The Greens amendments Nos 2, 3 and 5. Amendment No. 1 expands the definition of “distress” to add dehydration and poor body condition. New section 24O (3) would then read as follows:

(3) For the purposes of this Part, an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion, dehydration, poor body condition or significant physical injury.

The definition of “distress” in the bill appears to have been drawn from section 24H, pertaining to powers of police officers to detain vehicles or vessels. Section 24H applies specifically to when animals are being transported and is appropriate in those circumstances. However, concerns have been expressed that the section is rather narrow for the purposes of new section 24O, which applies to a wider range of animal welfare circumstances on the farm and would benefit from a broader definition. The Government has suggested that debility is sufficient. It is true that debility, being a state of weakness or infirmity, could cover animals in a state of poor body condition or dehydration. However, The Greens’ principal reason for recommending the inclusion of “poor body condition” and “dehydration” is for evidentiary purposes.

Experts in the RSPCA advise that debility is a harder state to prove than dehydration or poor body condition. It would be far easier for an inspector, or prosecutor if the action were challenged, to prove from a factual or scientific perspective that cattle or sheep were in poor body condition or were dehydrated than it is to prove that they were in a state of debility. Debility offers greater room for interpretation. If a vet were asked whether it would be easier to prove an animal was in a state of debility and poor body condition than to prove it was suffering from debility and dehydration, I am sure the answer would be the latter. For instance, a farmer could argue that cattle in a body score condition of two—that is, poor condition with bones starting to protrude—were not in a state of weakness or infirmity, which is debility, on the basis that they were still mobile and walking around. Poor body condition or dehydration of itself should be sufficient to enliven the proposed new power, particularly as the bill introduces a new collaborative process between the farmer and the stock welfare panel to prevent situations from worsening.
This would be entirely consistent with section 24P, which deals with the director general responding to the animal’s state of distress and being able to issue a warning because an animal has not been provided with necessary veterinary treatment or proper and sufficient food, drink or shelter. The stock welfare panel must determine the animal’s condition each time it intervenes, but the insertion of “dehydration” and “poor body condition” provides for evidence to determine the state of the animal’s condition. The amendment enables inspectors to comment on the condition of animals more thoroughly than simply by the term “debility”. As I suggested, the stock welfare panel makes the final determination, but The Greens’ amendment gives the panel greater ambit when assessing stock. The Greens urge all members in this place to support the amendment.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [5.34 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I shall speak briefly against the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. The object of the bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to make provision with respect to the seizure and disposal of certain stock animals, and for other purposes. Under the Act stock animals are defined as cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horse, goats, deer and any other animal species that may be prescribed under the regulations. 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. I note that exposure to the elements also is considered dehydration. This bill aims to provide for practical, cost-effective and educative intervention in stock welfare cases so that the stock are restored to good health before punitive measures are taken—that is, the carrot before the stick. It is a great way to educate people.
Animal welfare agencies will be responsible for investigating the condition and welfare of the animals alleged to be at risk. Enforcement agencies, such as the RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and the police will enforce offences listed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. This bill will provide for a stock welfare panel to assess and report to the director general on the state of and appropriate care for the animal, and any other matter concerning its welfare that the director general considers appropriate. The panel will consist of 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.
If the stock owner or person in charge is unable or unwilling to comply with the management plan issued by the panel the bill allows the director general to issue an official warning of intention to authorise seizure and disposal of stock animals. These two steps will provide ample time and notice for the stock owner to become educated on the welfare of their stock, and assist them to make practical changes to get the stock back to good health before punitive measures are pursued. If there is continued failure to comply and the condition of the stock is deteriorating the director general may, after considering the panel’s report, recommend seizure and disposal or sale of the stock. If the stock is sold the proceeds will go to the stock owner.
The Christian Democratic Party acknowledges that the bill is all about fair and equitable steps to assist and educate stock owners on animal welfare and safeguarding their stock; it is not about punishing good stock owners who genuinely try to look after their stock. I have been in similar situations regarding the eradication process of noxious weeds. Getting out amongst the people and educating them is a good model. I repeat: We need to use the carrot rather than the stick. If people do not comply and do the wrong thing then the stick—punitive measures—should be used, and the pressure should be great. The Christian Democratic Party does not support The Greens amendment but commends the bill without amendment.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.38 p.m.]: I make a few comments about the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. It is important to appreciate what managing animals is all about.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: We know about managing animals: we deal with you every day.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I note the interjection from the Hon. what’s-his-name. I doubt whether he has ever in his life been in charge of managing a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep. He would not know if an animal was in poor condition.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is that the Hon. Richard Colless knows better than to refer to members in this place by anything other than their correct title. I ask the Deputy-President to direct the member to desist.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! I ask the Hon. Richard Colless to address members by their correct titles.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: If I have upset the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham I withdraw the reference to his being “Corncob Joe”. People need to have an understanding of what is meant by exhaustion, suffering debility, dehydration and poor body condition in animals. In drought conditions animals can be in poor body condition but they can be strong and not exhausted. Farmers who are in the middle of a drought may have cattle in poor body condition that still maintain strength and the ability to forage for themselves and survive despite the fact they are on drought rations. Farmers in drought conditions that have stock in poor condition, but that are still strong and not suffering from exhaustion or any other debility, risk being caught by the amendment. For those reasons I think the amendment should be rejected. We have to be careful about choosing words that could catch people in a drought situation when their stock are not fat but are in a survivable condition.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.41 p.m.]: I echo the words of experience of the Hon. Richard Colless. His understanding of the issues far transcends that of those on the other side of the Chamber. I emphasise that the proposed amendment to insert the words “dehydration and poor body condition” into the definition in new section 24O (3) adds nothing of any consequence. If an animal is suffering from dehydration or poor body condition it is considered—if the circumstances are appropriate—to be debilitated, so the proposed extra words are unnecessary and redundant in the Government’s view. I urge The Greens to reflect upon that.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [5.42 p.m.]: When I looked at these amendments my inclination was that the Opposition should support them. I was waiting to hear whether the Government had a strong argument not to support them. My only reservation about them was whether the definition would restrict the inspector’s ability to make a judgement about cattle. From what the Government is saying, it does not do that. The Hon. Richard Colless commented that the reverse would apply. I have faith in the good judgement of the panels that will be put in place to interpret the rules. While the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary say that the amendment adds nothing, I do not see any problem with inserting the words. Therefore, the Opposition supports the amendment.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.43 p.m.]: I am glad that Labor is supporting the amendment. The Hon. Steve Whan has anticipated what I was going to say in reply: Inserting those words just gives the stock welfare panel and director general greater ambit to assess stock. They do not need to assess stock and immediately order anything, whether it be an official warning or for the stock welfare panel to meet. We know that the experts on the stock welfare panel will assess the stock, and if they are given the conditions of dehydration and poor body condition to assess stock against, it enables them slightly broader terms with which to make their assessment. We will trust that the people on the stock welfare panel—with support from The Greens next amendment—will be able to assess that with objectivity. The Greens urge the Committee to support this reasonable amendment.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-125A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2012-125A] negatived.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.44 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet C2012-125A:
No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 24T (1) (d), line 25. Insert “with expertise in animal welfare” after “persons”.
The Greens second amendment deals with the composition of the stock welfare panel, ensuring that the composition of this panel will be appropriate for a regulatory committee of this nature and confined to animal welfare experts. The wording would then read, “Such other person or persons with expertise in animal welfare as the regulations may prescribe.” This is a panel with a regulatory function established to give advice on the welfare of distressed livestock for the purposes of enforcement. It is not a stakeholder committee; it is an expert committee with a specific regulatory function that will advise the director general on enforcement issues. It is important that this panel is free from conflicts of interest.
The Greens consider providing for regulations to allow any person to be invited on to the panel to be too broad in this regulatory context. It would not be appropriate to invite stakeholders in an advocacy role onto this panel. The amendment restricts the panel members to those who are experts in animal welfare. The Minister flagged in the second reading speech that someone with expertise in animal nutrition might be invited onto the panel. That would be completely appropriate and the amendment allows for that circumstance. However, the Minister also suggested that a representative from the NSW Farmers Association, for example, could be invited onto a panel if the stock owner wants it.
The Greens fully support the NSW Farmers Association’s participation in a stakeholder committee advising the Minister on stock animal welfare policies—that would be appropriate and highly desirable—but The Greens do not think it is wise for someone with an advocacy role to be included on this panel with its particular regulatory and enforcement function. The amendment would not preclude someone from the Farmers Association being invited onto the panel if they were an appropriately qualified expert on animal welfare and could contribute to the panel’s considerations in that capacity. We note that the bill does not include provisions for dealing with any conflicts between the panellists, and such conflicts would be more likely if advocates were included rather than experts. The stock owner will be free to seek the services of the Farmers Association to assist them with their situation separate from the stock welfare panel. As the panel has a strict regulatory and enforcement function, The Greens amendment on its composition is entirely appropriate. The Greens urge members to support the amendment.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [5.47 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support The Greens amendment. Labor believes it is entirely appropriate for the panel to include someone from the NSW Farmers Association who may not have a formal qualification in animal welfare but certainly would have experience in animal welfare and stock. More importantly, I think it is entirely appropriate, when you look at the human perspective, for a farmer to have somebody there who can actually advocate their interests and put their side to the panel. That is not inappropriate in this case. The Opposition understands that stock welfare issues can sometimes be extremely difficult and emotional. It is appropriate that in those circumstances there is somebody present who can represent the farmer’s point of view in the discussions that occur.
I have concerns about what exactly are the qualifications required for “with expertise in animal welfare” and how those qualifications would be determined. I have heard debate over a long period about changes being made to requirements for farming and whether or not they, in the long term, constitute a licence to farm—which people become concerned about. It needs to be acknowledged that a person does not need to have formal qualifications to have expertise in animal welfare.

The legislation makes it clear that the composition of these panels should be defined by regulation. The Parliament has the opportunity to disallow a regulation if the panel goes beyond the intent of the bill or there is an imbalance and the animal welfare component of the panel is overwhelmed by some other consideration. It is a fair way of ensuring that panels primarily have expertise in animal welfare and can make decisions about the welfare of stock while taking into account the real and often difficult issues confronting farmers during times of drought. We should acknowledge that, although the primary objective is the welfare of animals, the welfare of farmers is also a critical issue. They can be extremely stressed during these times and throughout rural New South Wales the mental health and welfare of farmers is of great concern to all who observe those situations. The Opposition opposes the amendment.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.51 p.m.]: I also oppose the amendment. The stock welfare panels are an extremely good idea. The bill refers to the four categories of members that comprise the panels. The first is an inspector. I understand the intent is for the inspector to be from the RSPCA, an animal welfare organisation or the police. The second category is to include at least one officer of the Department of Primary Industries with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management. That would normally be the local beef cattle officer or livestock officer. The third category is to include at least one representative of the Livestock Health and Pest Authority, again with expertise in animal welfare, which would be the Livestock Health and Pest Authority district veterinarian or a similar person. The Greens wish to insert the words “with expertise in animal welfare” as a requirement for a panel member in the fourth category.
Already on the panel would be three people with expertise in animal welfare—members from the RSPCA or the Animal Welfare League, the Department of Primary Industries and the Livestock Health and Pest Authority. The words “other such person or persons as the regulations may prescribe” allow for a person who best fits the particular situation on the day. That may be a representative from NSW Farmers, if appropriate, or the local rural counsellor. It is not necessarily someone with skills or expertise in livestock management. As I said in the second reading stage, some of these issues are extremely delicate. More often than not the animals are drought-affected and the owners are traumatised because of the drought. Anybody who has had any dealings with farmers during times of drought would know the pressures that are placed on farmers when stock are in poor condition and they do not have the financial resources to properly feed them. I assure members that farmers suffer just as much as the livestock. It is a very delicate situation that needs to be handled carefully.

In those situations the rural counsellor could very well fulfil the role. More often than not that counsellor would not necessarily have the skills or expertise in livestock management. They may have expertise in a range of other areas such as counselling, accountancy and skills to help people with their financial problems but not in livestock management. That measure should remain as it is. The regulations will prescribe who those people will be, and they may change from to time. I do not think there is any need to add the words “with expertise in animal welfare”. It is better that the status quo remain.
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [5.54 p.m.]: The Hon. Steve Whan said that sometimes all panel members do not need to be expert; sometimes just life experience is needed. It has been my experience on the land that people who work the land who sow their heart, soul, blood and tears into the land are much wiser than some of the experts who have gone to university to learn the necessary information. People who work the land bring a sobriety not only about the stock but also about the social impact on families. The last thing we want is a panel of experts on stock making assumptions based on expertise on stock alone.
We need the humanitarian perspective to ensure that the best outcome is achieved for the stock, the farmer, the community and all stakeholders. Therefore, we do not support the amendment. In addition, one should always allow for the opportunity to coopt any expertise needed for specialty of stock on any particular occasion. There has to be room for movement rather than all the roles being filled. There needs to be sufficient flexibility to coopt expertise for individual situations that crop up at various times.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [5.56 p.m.]: The Greens’ amendment does not preclude the involvement of counsellors; indeed, we encourage it. We acknowledge that these are delicate issues and that the panel will engage with farmers during times of duress. However, this is a stock welfare panel, not a farmer welfare panel. However, we acknowledge that there should be recognition of social welfare. This is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill and the panel should be populated by people who have expertise in that area. I agree with the Hon. Paul Green that there should be potential for the panel to coopt and engage with persons who have skills in farmer welfare, psychology and so on. The Greens do not suggest for a moment that it is inappropriate but a stock welfare panel should be populated with people who are experts principally in stock welfare.
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.58 p.m.]: I reflect briefly on the wise words of experience of the Hon. Rick Colless once more, supplemented by those of the Hon. Paul Green. The Government clearly does not support the amendment. It is unnecessary and overprescriptive. The bill already provides for the Department of Primary Industries and Livestock Health and Pest Authority representatives to have expertise in animal welfare and livestock management. As the Hon. Rick Colless pointed out, as a matter of course at least one representative will be a veterinarian. Depending on the situation, it may be appropriate for the panel to include a member who has expertise in areas such as financial management, agronomy, social welfare or mental health. In addition, the farmer may well feel more comfortable or less threatened working with the panel if it included the local NSW Farmers representative. It is pretty clear that flexibility in this regulation is appropriate to meet these changing circumstances. Accordingly, the Government opposes the proposed amendment.
The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.59 p.m.]: It is almost as if we are no longer debating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2012. This is about appointing additional people to a stock welfare panel, which will report to the director general on the state of and appropriate care for animals and any other matters concerning their welfare. This is about the director general issuing warnings about the state of the animals and a stock welfare panel assessing the condition of animals in distress. I am pretty certain that nowhere in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does it talk about the owners and their state of mind or their welfare. At some point the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has to be about the welfare of the animals. That is what The Greens amendment is about.
Members have spoken about the people who are already on the stock welfare panel: the inspector—who is probably an RSPCA inspector, or similar, and is obviously an expert in animal welfare—and at least one officer of the department with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management. I would hazard a guess that the departmental officer will be an expert in livestock management, not animal welfare—there are hardly any of them left because the Government has gutted the animal welfare unit in the Department of Primary Industries. I would also hazard a guess that the one representative of a livestock health and pest authority with expertise in animal welfare probably has expertise in livestock management. So we have that livestock management expert and another from the department as well as the animal welfare inspector, which is fine. In her second reading speech the Minister suggested that the third or fourth person appointed could be a representative of the NSW Farmers Association.

So suddenly the panel could contain a representative of the NSW Farmers Association, advocating, lobbying for and defending the farmer’s actions, and two people who will not advocate as strongly for animal welfare as would somebody from an organisation that puts animal welfare first and foremost. That is why The Greens have moved the amendment. Again, it has emanated, not surprisingly, from animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, which deal with regulatory functions and the problems associated with them on a daily basis. Therefore, they jump at any opportunity to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, to strengthen their regulatory functions and to ensure that animal welfare is first and foremost. I am perplexed at the contribution of the Hon. Paul Green, who suggested having a counsellor on the board and referred to other issues. The bill is not about that. It is not about the conditions in the town at the time or what is happening with the farmer—as distressing and legitimate as those factors may be.

The Hon. Paul Green: Point of order: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann is incorrect. It was the Hon. Rick Colless who suggested having a counsellor on the board. I would like to correct the record. It was a good suggestion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I was under the impression that the Hon. Paul Green was talking about other people being on the panel. As I said before, even though we share members’ concerns about the impacts of drought, the distress it causes and all the associated impacts on regional and rural communities and farmers, the fact is that this bill is not about that. This bill is about the welfare of stock in drought conditions and the horrible situations that we know stock animals are found in. The bill is about creating a stock welfare panel; it is about animal welfare. I urge members to support The Greens amendment.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.05 p.m.]: I now understand where The Greens are coming from with this amendment. The Greens believe there is a difference between livestock management and animal welfare. I have been involved in livestock management all my working life in one form or another, as a livestock owner and in my role as an agricultural consultant, and I have yet to meet somebody involved in professional livestock management—as a farmer, a sheep and wool officer, a beef cattle officer or a piggery officer—who is not 100 per cent concerned about the welfare of the animals.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: The meat and livestock authority doesn’t have a good reputation for animal welfare.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is the whole point. A Department of Primary Industries livestock officer, a sheep and wool officer or a beef cattle officer who serves on a stock welfare panel will be absolutely concerned about the welfare of the animals. They will not just abandon animal welfare. As a livestock owner, my number one concern was the welfare of my cattle—looking after them and managing them properly. This amendment does not allow the livestock owner any involvement in the process. The Greens are trying to divorce the livestock owner from the process and make it purely a regulatory function—as they so often do. They have no comprehension of what livestock management is about. You cannot manage livestock properly if you do not manage the livestock owner properly. That is why in many circumstances a rural financial counsellor could end up being a member of the stock welfare panel, and rightly so. There are already three other livestock officers on the panel. This amendment should be thrown out.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [6.07 p.m.]: The comments of the Hon. Rick Colless and his generalisations show exactly why only animal welfare experts should serve on the stock welfare panel. It is a generalisation to say the only thing livestock managers consider when managing livestock is the animals’ welfare. There are many other considerations and one of those is—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You are out of your depth; go back to CSG.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I was marking and drenching lambs on the weekend at Kilfenora, outside Orange.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Were you hurting them?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Come on, mate. One of the key issues in maintaining livestock is that there is an economic imperative—every farmer knows that. Every farmer knows that a key consideration is how much it will cost to manage those animals, and sometimes that conflicts with animal welfare. There are key issues. Can farmers afford to keep the feed up to the animals? Can they afford to get the water to the animals? Can they afford to manage the animals appropriately? That is the conflict in this situation, and the Hon. Rick Colless knows that. That is why we do not want someone with that potential conflict on this panel. The person on the panel should not have an advocacy role for the management regime of the farmer rather than animal welfare. This bill is about the prevention of cruelty to animals and it is completely appropriate that the panel be populated by people who have that as their key objective. The panel should not make its deliberations in terms of the appropriate economic response of the farmer.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.10 p.m.]: The Hon. Rick Colless was merely getting to the basis of this argument. It is a marriage; it is symbiotic. This is about the livelihood of the people on the land. As the Hon. Rick Colless said, there is probably nothing worse for a farmer or a livestock producer than to have thousands of animals put down due to drought conditions. This bill is about prevention of cruelty, but when famers are locked in to 10 years of drought and have nothing to feed their stock their hands are tied. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act affects many stakeholders. The Hon. Rick Colless is saying that the last thing we need is to have a panel charging in and holding farmers to account for breaking the law while disregarding the socio-economic impact on the farmer, stakeholders and families in the community. There needs to be a balance. Having someone with an economic interest on the panel will ensure that not only are livestock treated appropriately but also livelihoods are considered and people are treated with compassion and mercy when they are in such a terrible situation.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.12 p.m.]: It would be a sad day if we considered all bills on the basis that they will impact only on whatever is in their title. We examine every piece of legislation on the basis of its impact on our society as a whole and the people involved in it. Otherwise decisions will be taken without any concern for the impact on others. In this case that is the farmers. It may be consumers in the case of other legislation that might increase costs or make it harder to buy something. It is wrong to suggest that this is a narrow bill that deals only with the animals. We are only considering these amendments in part because of some of the things that happened to farmers during the last drought. We know that farmers had difficulties with stock. We know that there were difficulties in removing and selling stock and returning the funds to farmers. All that relates to the business as an entirety and the people involved in it. It is wrong to suggest that this bill is so narrow that it does not impact on, and should not involve the wellbeing of, the farmers. That is why Labor will not support The Greens amendment.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann also said that the livestock health and pest authorities representative was likely to be a livestock officer. I would have thought it would be far more likely to be the livestock health and pest authorities veterinarian, which each authority still has. I hope that will remain the position when the Government finally decides what to do with the livestock health and pest authorities. That worries me immensely because I hear that they will be rolled into catchment management authorities and extension offices.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [6.14 p.m.]: As we are discussing this amendment it is concerning to hear members refer increasingly to things such as socio-economic factors, as mentioned by the Hon. Paul Green. The Hon. Steve Whan said we must take into account the welfare of the farmer. That is not in the bill. This bill does not address the welfare of the farmer. This bill is not supposed to take—

The Hon. Steve Whan: That is an awful precedent to set.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I am sorry but this is about the welfare—

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is their modus operandi: They don’t care about farmers. You don’t care about farmers, Cate. You haven’t for years.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: The interjection by the Hon. Rick Colless is an absolutely disgraceful comment and it is completely untrue. I am trying to deal with this bill objectively while recognising that it is a serious issue. This bill will establish a stock welfare panel to deal with situations when there is cruelty to animals. That includes when livestock are suffering from a drought, and possibly when farmers do not feed their animals either deliberately or because of the drought.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Are you suggesting that they would deliberately not feed their animals?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: We know that there have been obscene and extreme cases of cruelty to animals in this State. We know that, we have seen it and we are all appalled by it. This bill is about the welfare of stock. Members in this place should not suddenly throw in socio-economic factors because they are not part of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Whether people like it or not, they are not in the Act. The welfare of the owners of other animals that have been mistreated is not taken into consideration when their dogs, cats or other animals are seized. These are the facts before us. I know that the amendment will not be passed but it is concerning that during their contributions many members have thrown out the original intent of this bill. It is not about socio-economic factors or the welfare of the farmer; it is about the welfare of the stock—pure and simple. I hate to say it, but that is what it is about.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [6.16 p.m.]: New section 24T (1) (b) and (c) make the amendment unnecessary. They provide that a stock welfare panel will comprise:
(b) at least one officer of the Department with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management,

(c) at least one representative of a livestock health and pest authority, with expertise in animal welfare or livestock management …

The amendment is unnecessary. It is covered in the bill.
Question—That The Greens amendment No. 4 [C2012-125A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4
Ms Barham
Mr Buckingham

Tellers,
Ms Faehrmann
Dr Kaye
Noes, 30
Mr Ajaka
Mr Blair
Mr Borsak
Mr Brown
Ms Cotsis
Ms Cusack
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Green
Mr Khan Mr Lynn
Mr MacDonald
Mrs Maclaren-Jones
Mr Mason-Cox
Mrs Mitchell
Mr Moselmane
Reverend Nile
Mrs Pavey
Mr Primrose
Mr Roozendaal
Mr Searle Mr Secord
Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Ms Westwood
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Dr Phelps
Question resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 4 [C2012-125A] negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.
Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
[The Assistant-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 6.28 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

	H Anderson on Steve Coleman CEO RSPCA N…
	jean on Steve Coleman CEO RSPCA N…
	Fiona M Robinson on A situation worth watching the…
	jmindependantwatchdo… on iNSPECTOR SPECIALIST IN ANIMAL…
	jmindependantwatchdo… on iNSPECTOR SPECIALIST IN ANIMAL…

rspcaanimalcruelty

~ A great WordPress.com site

New Stock Welfare Panel – NSW POCTAA Amendment Bill 2012

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply