2015-11-10
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2015 and to say at the outset that the Greens will support the bill. The bill makes quite a few amendments to the act which will have the effect of improving animal welfare and particularly improving the administration of the act and the ability of inspectors under the act to take action in certain circumstances. We will always welcome improvements to the ability to prevent cruelty to animals and to act swiftly when that does occur, as sadly it does every day in Victoria.
Having said that, the bill before us still leaves Victoria's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 wanting in many areas with regard to the bill's purposes. It is worth reiterating what the purposes of the bill are. The minister mentioned them in her second-reading speech, but I would like to reiterate them here. The purposes of the bill are (a) to prevent cruelty to animals, (b) to encourage the considerate treatment of animals and (c) to improve the level of community awareness about the prevention of cruelty to animals. They are high and worthy goals.
While many of the provisions of both the act both as it stands currently and as it will be if and when these amendments go through will go some way towards achieving the bill's purposes in terms of many areas of animal welfare in the community, particularly with regard to farm animals and animals involved in racing, the bill falls well short in the protection of those animals. Certainly the Victorian act and most similar acts across the Australian states and territories fall short in this regard. I say 'fall short' not only in relation to the provisions but also in relation to movements in some overseas jurisdictions, such as New Zealand as well as some states here, with regard to improvements to animal welfare standards for farm animals and animals involved in racing. The community wants more to be done, especially with regard to farm animals and animals involved in the racing industry.
I will now turn to the provisions of the bill. With regard to large-scale animal welfare emergencies that concern the condition of animals or some other emergency regarding a large number of animals on a particular site, there are some improvements to the legislation with regard to the ability to act swiftly. At the moment ministerial powers require seven days' notice. The minister's second-reading speech outlined a particular instance where that situation was wanting with regard to looking after those animals. In many other instances that has been the case as well. The Greens are supportive of those particular provisions that are in the bill to improve the act in that regard.
The second-reading speech, in its third paragraph, says:
There is an ongoing risk of animal welfare emergencies of this kind, particularly in intensive animal production systems.
I think it is quite interesting that the second-reading speech actually mentions that, because the inherent problems that are involved in intensive animal production systems lead to these types of emergencies and require us as a Parliament to act in terms of what the community would like to see, and that is to phase out these types of intensive industries. The large-scale emergency that was referred to was with regard to birds, but we do have intensive production in the dairy and pig industries that can give rise to emergencies because of the inherent problems of those intensive farming industries.
The bill creates new offences with regard to live baiting in the greyhound industry and makes it very clear that live baiting is an offence. It also introduces the offence of keeping certain animals at a greyhound training venue or racing venue. That will also be an offence under the act. The Greens, and I am sure the community, welcome those new provisions that will be introduced through the bill. The Greens have been calling for an independent regulator for the greyhound industry.
In fact, given the revelations with regard to live baiting in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, the Greens have moved to strengthen our national policy with regard to greyhounds. Previously in Victoria the policy was to end cruel recreational and sporting activities that use animals. Specifically, we had mentioned jumps racing, but we had not specifically mentioned greyhound racing in Victoria, but now it is a national policy of the Greens to end greyhound racing. I will refer to the reasons for that. Clearly, the issue of live baiting is one that has appalled the community, but greyhound racing is a hazard for greyhounds as well as for those animals that were involved in live baiting.
The research Animals Australia has conducted estimates that up to 18 000 healthy greyhounds are killed in the industry every year, up to 8000 puppies and young dogs never make it onto the track and another 10 000 that are retired from racing because they are too slow to win are also killed. Animals Australia has indicated that of the puppies born each year, 8000 will never race and are most likely killed. Every week five dogs are killed on the racetrack. When dogs are not racing, most lead lives of deprivation, and four out of five dogs that are retired from racing are killed.
The greyhounds that do race on the track are put at significant risk of sustaining serious injuries, such as broken hocks or legs, or head trauma, and up to 200 dogs are reported injured during official races every week. Some even die from cardiac arrest due to the extreme physical intensity of racing, and on many occasions the injuries are 'uneconomical' to treat, and the owner will instead have the dog euthanased. As I said, on average, around five are killed every week on greyhound racing tracks around Australia. Also there are reports and rumours of dogs being drugged with cocaine, caffeine and anabolic steroids within the greyhound racing industry. These have abounded for years and were reported on the ABC's 7.30 program, with one trainer being suspended for 18 months after pleading guilty to doping with anabolic steroids.
The greyhound industry's greyhound adoption program (GAP) operates in most states, but rehomes only a relatively small number of ex-racing dogs — around 1000 nationally each year. The longest-established GAP is here in Victoria, and it rehomed 536 greyhounds last year, with the other states rehoming significantly fewer. Other rescue groups also rehome greyhounds, but together those efforts still amount to only 10 per cent of the dogs born in the industry living out a natural life span.
The greyhound racing industry also exports greyhounds overseas, and one of the biggest markets is Macau, where the Canidrome racing track does not allow dogs to be adopted. Greyhounds Australasia adopted a policy in 2014 opposing the export of greyhounds to Macau, Vietnam and other countries which do not have animal welfare laws. It is interesting to note that Australia is one of only eight countries in the world with a commercial greyhound racing industry, and it is by far the biggest. Internationally, it is an industry in decline. In the USA, for example, greyhound racing is now illegal in 39 states; 28 of the 49 tracks have closed since 2001, and wagering on greyhounds is dramatically reducing. My information is that more states of the USA will be moving to make greyhound racing illegal.
This is an activity that is cruel to animals, and it really does not have an ongoing place in the Australian community. The Greens around Australia will be pushing for an end to this industry. The changes that are being made in Victoria are welcome. They are an improvement on the former situation, where Greyhound Racing Victoria was left to regulate itself and allowed the sorts of practices that we have all seen to continue, but it is an industry we should be pushing to see the end of.
The bill also includes some provisions to prevent animal fighting and to increase entry powers at properties where it is suspected that dog fighting or cockfighting may be occurring. Most people in the community would be horrified to think that these types of activities are occurring at all, but sadly they are. Any moves to make sure such activities are stamped out immediately are welcome.
The bill will allow the courts to impose lifetime bans on people owning or being in charge of animals if they have been convicted of aggravated cruelty, and the courts can also impose control orders and/or education to prevent reoffending where the offences are not so aggravated or cruel. These provisions will now be monitored by inspectors, which is not currently the case. There will also be new powers for inspectors to direct owners or persons in charge of an animal to comply with directions with regard to livestock safety during inspections, and spaying of animals will be prohibited now unless done by a veterinary practitioner. The bill also creates an offence for the sale or conveyance of any animal that is unfit to travel due to emaciation, injury or disease. It ought to be the most basic and essential of provisions that that be fixed under the act, and of course that animals are able to be moved in such states is abhorrent to everybody.
The bill makes changes to part 3 of the act, which is entitled 'Scientific procedures', otherwise known as animal testing. This is an area of great and ongoing public concern, and part 3 largely relates to the licensing of premises and fieldwork. There is less attention in part 3 to the breeding of animals. There is something about authorised officers and there are some offences under that part of the act.
According to the second-reading speech, the bill will modernise the licensing and fee structure to better accommodate the increasing diversity of licence-holders, reduce regulatory burden and improve cost recovery. Therefore there are a large number of administrative changes. For example, under the bill natural persons can be found guilty of an offence, rather than just organisations; there will be a fit and proper person test; the scope of the peer review committee will be broadened; and inspectors will be able to compel people to comply with their licence. These are all pretty basic provisions in an act that is about the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Whilst there are some new offences under the bill, and there is the ability for inspectors to enter and force people to comply with their licence, the real issue is the scientific procedures part of the bill and the ongoing community concern with regard to using animals in scientific procedures. On 6 October I asked the minister some questions with regard to the National Non-Human Primate Breeding and Research Facility in Churchill, Victoria, and I asked her questions such as: how many primates are currently held in the facility? How many of each species are held? How many are used for research or related purposes? I asked questions about the deaths or injuries of those non-human primates and so on. The minister responded as follows:
Information about the current primate population of the national breeding colony hosted by Monash University, and any importation of primates to the facility, is held by Monash University, and not by my department.
She said I should direct my queries to the university, but I think I will be taking that one up with the minister. She also referred me to a document called Statistics of Animal Use in Research and Teaching, Victoria, which is available on the department's website. It does provide a little bit of information but not the information I am asking for with regard to this particularly important issue, which is about research on non-human primates in the state of Victoria. Through my second-reading contribution tonight I give notice to the minister that I will be following up the answers to those questions, which I believe the community will be interested in hearing. The minister should know the answer to those questions and should not be referring me to the university for the answers.
I thank the department and ministerial advisers for the briefing on this bill; it feels like it occurred a very long time ago! I asked the staff present at the briefing to furnish me with a comparison of the penalties for cruelty and aggravated cruelty in the states and territories, because animal welfare is largely regulated by the states and territories rather than by the commonwealth. The commonwealth really only deals with export, including live export, and of course the Greens and many people in other parties oppose live animal exports, which I applaud. In addition, the vast majority of the community also opposes live exports. I will not go into the detail now, but it is interesting that around the states and territories the penalties for cruelty and aggravated cruelty are quite varied. The issue needs attention nationally because we need some national uniformity, I would suggest, in this area.
Having gone through the major provisions of the bill and indeed stating that the Greens are supportive of them — although we are a little sceptical with regard to the motivation and the effect in terms of animal welfare in the changes to part 3 of the act — I should also state that, as foreshadowed by Mr Drum in his contribution, the Greens have amendments to the bill, which I am happy to have circulated at this time.
Greens amendments circulated by Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.
Ms PENNICUIK — The amendments that I have now formally circulated were provided to the parties prior to this debate to give members an opportunity to familiarise themselves with them and ask questions if they wanted to.
These amendments are very similar to provisions contained in a private members bill that I brought before the Council in September last year. It did not proceed to the second-reading debate, but I have introduced and first read a similar bill that is currently sitting on the notice paper. That bill proposes amendments to legislation to ban battery cages, ban the debeaking of hens — or domestic fowl as they are called in the bill — and ban the keeping of sows in sow stalls. It also proposes amendments to the Food Act 1984 with regard to the labelling of eggs to make sure 'free range' actually means free range.
The amendments I am putting forward today relate to prohibiting the keeping of domestic fowl in battery cages, prohibiting the removal or trimming of the beaks of domestic fowl unless done by a veterinary practitioner for therapeutic purposes and prohibiting the keeping of pigs in inappropriate accommodation. I have a contingent notice of motion on the notice paper seeking that, subject to the bill being committed, the committee be allowed to consider a further amendment and a new clause to prohibit steeplechase and hurdle racing, otherwise known as jumps racing. The amendments in relation to prohibiting battery cages, the debeaking of domestic fowl and the keeping of pigs in sow stalls are all within the scope of the bill before us now. To move the amendment and new clause relating to steeplechase and jumps racing would require the passing of a motion following the second-reading debate.
There are different commencement dates envisaged for these amendments. If the amendment and new clause to prohibit jumps racing were supported, they would commence whenever the bill commences — on a date to be proclaimed. The amendment to prohibit the debeaking of domestic fowl would also commence whenever the bill commences. The amendment to prohibit sow stalls would come into operation on 1 January 2017, which is in line with what the industry association says it is aiming for in its own phase-out of sow stalls. The prohibition on battery cages would come into operation on 1 January 2018.
I will go through some of my reasons for proposing these amendments. The amendments would prohibit the keeping of domestic fowl in battery cages. A battery cage would be defined as:
… a cage for housing of domestic fowl that does not allow the fowl to do all of the following, whether because of the cage itself (including the dimensions) or things in the cage (including other domestic fowl) —
(a) fully stretch;
(b) perch;
(c) access litter;
(d) lay eggs in a nest …
While of course that is a very technical definition, I think everybody here, and certainly everybody in the community, understands what battery cages are, because they have had so much publicity.
According to Voiceless, an organisation that carries out research and devotes itself to the improvement of animal welfare — in particular with regard to farm animals — right now in Australia it is estimated that there are over 12 million battery hens confined to small cages as part of standard egg production, unable to perform even their most natural behaviours. According to animal welfare expert Dr John Webster, who is quoted on the Voiceless website:
… the unenriched battery cage simply does not meet the physiological and behavioural requirements of the laying hen, which makes any quibbling about minimum requirements for floor space superfluous.
So far the ACT is the only jurisdiction in Australia to have completely prohibited the use of battery cages. Tasmania prohibited any new battery hen operators from coming into operation from 2013. But for the most part, Australian state and territory agriculture ministers have refused to recognise that battery cages are blatantly cruel. This is in stark contrast to developments overseas, where battery cages have already been outlawed.
The EU legislated to phase out battery cages by 2012, with the UK having met this target, and the European Commission pushing non-compliant countries to move ahead. Switzerland has established new requirements for the housing of chickens that came into effect in 1991, effectively eliminating battery cages there. Voters in the US state of California approved a ban on battery cages this year. As of July 2010, California also requires all eggs sold in the state to comply with the requirement that hens be able to stand up and fully extend their wings. Michigan has followed suit, committing to a phase-out by 2019. In 2010, five years ago, Ohio, which is America's second largest egg-producing state, enacted a moratorium on the construction of new battery egg facilities.
While all these changes are encouraging, the real victory lies with the consumers who are demonstrating with their consuming power that they do not want battery cages to exist. Over the last decade Australian consumers have increasingly embraced the global ethical food movement. A Voiceless study in 2011 found that 80 per cent of Australians support a ban on battery cages. Australian sales of cage-free eggs, which include free-range, barn-laid and organic, now make up almost 60 per cent, possibly more by now, of retail market share.
Australian retailers have responded to this, with Coles ending its sale of Coles-branded cage eggs in 2013 and Woolworths announcing that it will phase them out by 2018. This is something that needs to be covered in the act, and like other jurisdictions we need to make it illegal to keep hens in this way. While consumers are trying to do the best they can, they are perplexed by the sometimes deceptive but certainly unclear and confusing labelling laws. As I mentioned I am unable to do anything about that with this bill because it relates to a different act, the Food Act 1984, but changes are being looked at by the Council of Australian Governments at the national level.
Another of my proposed amendments would prohibit the keeping of pigs in inappropriate accommodation. Appropriate accommodation would be accommodation that allows a pig to turn around, stand up and lie down without difficulty; have a clean, comfortable and adequately drained place in which it can lie down; maintain a comfortable temperature; and have outdoor access. If the accommodation is for more than one pig, it should allow each pig in the accommodation to lie down at the same time and allow each pig in the accommodation to see another pig unless it is isolated on the advice of a veterinary practitioner or it is a week before, or during, farrowing for the pig.
This is an issue that Australians support. As far back as 21 November 2007 I moved in this place to disallow the so-called code of practice for the welfare of pigs, which sadly did not go where it should have gone — that is, to outlaw what we know as sow stalls. While Australian Pork Limited has announced that it is committing to a voluntary phase-out of the use of sow stalls by 2017, that will just be for those pig producers that belong to the association and there will be no legal ramifications for individuals who continue to confine sows in this way.
As in other areas of the law and regulation, voluntary industry self-regulation is not the way to go. If an industry wants to voluntarily phase out sow stalls, I do not object to that, but I think it needs to be backed up with legislation. Voiceless research found that 82 per cent of Australians agree that sow stalls should be banned. They have been partially banned in the United Kingdom and Sweden, with New Zealand to follow this year. Similar bans have been implemented in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and nine US states, with other US states to follow. Here in Australia Coles' own-brand pork products have been sow-stall free for the last two years, and Woolworths has committed to sourcing all of its fresh pork meat from farms that only use sow stalls for less than 10 per cent of the gestation period. To date the ACT and Tasmania are the only jurisdictions to have taken action to prohibit or restrict the use of sow stalls through law reform. Victoria could take the lead here, and we have the opportunity to do so with the bill before us today.
Lastly I go to my proposed amendment, which is dependent on a motion being carried to allow me to put it, to prohibit steeplechasing and hurdle racing or, as we all know it, jumps racing. South Australia and Victoria are the only states that allow jumps racing. Queensland stopped jumps racing in 1903 and Western Australia in 1941, and it was made illegal in New South Wales under its Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in 1997, 18 years ago. The last jumps race was held in Tasmania in 2007. It is time that jumps racing was also banned in Victoria and South Australia.
In his contribution Mr Drum went to some length to try to defend jumps racing, saying that changes made by Racing Victoria and by the government had made jumps racing safer. That is not the case, and I refer people to the Animals Australia website if they want to find out more about this issue. This year five horses have been killed on the track in Victoria. On 13 November a horse called Rabbuka was euthanased on the track after sustaining several severe injuries in a heavy fall at Casterton — —
Ms Lovell interjected.
Ms PENNICUIK — Casterton. It depends which school you went to Ms Lovell, even though we went to the same school. I could digress and say that I think it is because my mother comes from New South Wales, where they would say Newcastle and Casterton.
A horse called Trenchtown was killed at Morphettville in South Australia on 27 July. He injured his leg during the race and was killed after finishing in last place. A horse called Verification suffered severe injuries in a fall and was killed on the track at Cranbourne on 9 April this year. Feel the Fame fell on the track and sustained serious injuries and was killed on the track at Cranbourne on the same day. Try Pickle collided with a hurdle, sustained a fractured leg and was killed on the track on 5 June at Casterton. Five horses were killed last year, four the year before and six in 2012. The further you go back in time, the more horses have been killed, but the point is that horses continue to be killed in jumps racing because it is inherently dangerous.
We are often told that horses love to jump, but as I mentioned by way of a members statement earlier this year with regard to a particular meeting, in none of the three jumps races did all of the horses finish.
In one of them more than half the horses did not finish, and in all of those races horses lost their jockeys and continued to run around the track without their jockeys. In only one case, right after the jockey had fallen off, did a horse actually jump over a jump. It did not jump over any further jumps, and neither did any of those horses without jockeys jump over any further jumps. In fact one of them collided with the barrier in order to avoid a jump. It is a myth that horses want to jump, because when left to their own devices that is not what they do. They do anything but jump over the jumps.
Further to the horses that are catastrophically injured on the track after breaking their necks, breaking their legs and being basically euthanased on the track, there are hundreds of horses that are never seen again. Since 2000, 118 horses have been killed in jumps races and trials in Victoria, and, as I said, that includes 4 this season and 1 in South Australia this season. Around 50 per cent of jumps horses disappear from all forms of racing the following year, largely due to injuries sustained in jumps events. Research has shown that jumps racing is far more dangerous than flat racing, with catastrophic limb injuries 18 times more likely, and cranial, back and neck injuries 121 times more likely in jumps events.
Also this is an activity which the vast majority of Victorians do not support. Many racegoers — even in surveys done by Racing Victoria Limited — have expressed concern about jumps racing and have said they wish it were taken out of the racing industry. Many people do not attend race meets because jumps events are on.
That explains the amendments that I wish to move. I did not mention the amendment with regard to debeaking. I heard Mr Drum say, 'Hens need to be debeaked because of their close confinement — they might peck each other'. I have two answers to that: do not closely confine them; allow them to be free range. That gets rid of that problem. Under my amendment there is still an ability to debeak for a therapeutic purpose or if there is a problem with the actual number of hens, and that needs to happen by a vet using an anaesthetic. Research has shown, and people would understand, that the beaks of hens are very sensitive. They are full of nerve endings, and of course they are an integral part of a hen, which uses its beak to not only pick things up but also to sense where things are. Debeaking has been described by Animals Australia as like cutting off someone's fingertips. That is how painful debeaking is to a hen. There is no need for it, and it should be outlawed as a clear case of animal cruelty. It is something that under the purposes of this act should not be allowed in Victoria. As I said, if that amendment was to be accepted, it would come into being as soon as the act was proclaimed.
I know I have taken a long time. I have taken nearly all of my allocated time to talk about the provisions that are in the bill which the Greens are supportive of but also to outline the types of amendments we need to make to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in Victoria to actually make it a proper act that prevents cruelty to animals in Victoria. At the moment there are very large gaps in the act and in the application of the act with regard to farm animals and those that are involved in intensive farming practices, and I note the cruelty and the suffering that these animals — thousands of animals in Victoria, every single day — undergo unnecessarily.
We should as a community and as a Parliament be moving much faster than we are. Mr Drum said, 'These things are in motion'. I say they are in slow motion — very slow motion. Many jurisdictions across the world, even here in Australia, have already moved on these issues. I say if not now, when? When are we going to move to prohibit these types of activities, as has been done around the world, as is being done in other states? Victoria should be taking the lead here. Mr Drum started out his contribution by saying, 'We need to improve the welfare of animals', but there is a lot more we need to do. I have outlined that in the amendments I will be moving when we get to the committee stage of the debate on the bill.
Instruction to Committee:
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider an amendment and new clause to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2015 to provide for an offence prohibiting steeplechasing and hurdle racing.
It is otherwise known in Victoria and South Australia as jumps racing, and they are the only two states that still host these events. I was interested in Ms Pulford's allegation that somehow I had not circulated these amendments due to some by-elections which recently occurred, but I remind her that in fact on 21 October, well after the time the by-elections were announced, I made a members statement in this place calling for the ending of jumps racing, as I have done many, many times. Indeed I mentioned in my contribution to the second-reading debate that events such as the Warrnambool Cup or the Warrnambool Racing Carnival — and I am sure Mr Purcell will have something else to say about this — might benefit from the lack of jumps racing because there are a lot of people who do not attend race meetings where jumps events occur because of that.
There has been a lot of mention of the RSPCA today in contributions and its support for various provisions in this bill. I take the opportunity to commend the RSPCA for the work it does now and has done over many years for animal welfare, but if I can just quote from its very extensive contribution on its website about jumps racing, the RSPCA absolutely disputes the claims that jumps racing is safe and maintains that jumps racing puts horses at an unacceptably high risk of injury and death. The RSPCA goes on to say:
Over many decades, the industry has been given the opportunity to make jumps racing safer for horses and jockeys alike. There have been multiple safety reviews, and these have included consultations with animal welfare bodies such as the RSPCA. However, despite these reviews and recommendations, and despite RVL claiming that jumps racing is the safest it's ever been we continue to see horses die in the name of sport.
As I mentioned, 118 horses at least have been killed in jumps racing on the track since 2000 in Victoria. That is eight horses a year. That does not include all of the horses that sustain injuries and are not seen again.
The RSPCA says that people love to say horses 'love to jump'. It says:
The truth is that horses only jump obstacles at full gallop because they are forced to do so.
Horses are intelligent animals with a high level of perception of their environment. If they approached an obstacle that required jumping over in the natural environment, the horse's reaction would be to slow down, assess the obstacle and adjust their gait accordingly. Survival instincts suggest that horses are unlikely to jump over obstacles at full speed and risk injury or death. Most horses losing their riders during jumps races (which happens frequently) —
and I mentioned in my contribution and in the Parliament earlier this year a debacle at one of the recent events where all the races included riderless horses —
choose to run around hurdles and steeples rather than to continue jumping.
The website goes on to say:
Jumps racing pushes horses far beyond their natural limits. It exposes these animals to a much higher risk of musculoskeletal injuries, physiological stress, other injuries and death when compared to flats racing.
…
There is significant hype around the spectacle of jumps racing but the truth is a race with a handful of starters is certainly not a spectacle and either is watching horses and jockeys fall.
… nearly 20 per cent of starters not reaching the finish line for a variety of reasons. Horses that do finish often struggle many tens of lengths after the winner and are never in contention. Sadly, this doesn't stop many riders continuing to whip their horses even though they have no chance of success.
The RSPCA finds it disgusting that the sight of horses being driven at high speed over jumps, where any miscalculation can result in a fall or a death, is described as an exciting spectacle. Each and every race is a gamble with death. The Australian Jumps Racing Association's own president Rodney Rae has suggested that this risk is acceptable:
'In any endeavour involving animals, you are going to have casualties. Our aim is to minimise the risk' …
Also on the website is:
It is unnecessary and indefensible in contemporary society for horses to be put at risk of injury or death for the entertainment of a minority … a jumps race cannot be run safely and humanely no matter how much time, effort and resources are placed on improving safety.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Finn) — Order! Ms Pennicuik's time has expired.
Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — We will be opposing this motion for the reasons outlined in the second-reading debate. I do not think this is an appropriate mechanism by which to consider this matter. It is a $25 million industry; it has great significance to regional Victorian economies in particular. This is well beyond the scope of the legislation before us today. Whilst I understand Ms Pennicuik's views, and indeed those of the RSPCA and others in the community, it is the government's view that jumps racing is a matter for the racing industry. But in any event, this is not an appropriate mechanism to be debating this issue.
Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — On behalf of the coalition I express our opposition to this motion as a form of moving amendments. It is well known that the former Premier, Denis Napthine, was a tremendous supporter of the jumps racing industry. The work he did in my home town of Bendigo to help revamp a full day of jumps racing put jumps racing in Bendigo back on the map and was very important for that industry.
It is also a well-known fact, if you go and have a look at some of the champion thoroughbred racing stables, that trainers quite often throw these champion million-dollar racehorses over the jumps — not the tall hurdles that you see at the Grand National — because the horses love to jump. It actually revitalises many of the thoroughbreds. The horses that everybody is backing in the Melbourne Cup Carnival would have been jumping over little sets of jumps as a way of getting enthused and getting a bit of life back into their training. It is a technique used by all of the top trainers because the horses do in fact love to jump.
I admit to Ms Pennicuik that it is a different story when it comes to the big races over long distances. That is obviously something horses have to train for and become very good at. Little kids like to play in the backyard and they love to pick up the stick and hit something, and horses love to jump. This is an opportunity for the coalition to throw its weight behind this industry, and we are very proud to do so.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — If I could just respond, in particular, to the government's comments and particularly to the remark that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 is not an appropriate mechanism. Jumps racing is in fact illegal in New South Wales under its Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, which the amendment I am proposing to move is based on, so the amendment can be used for that. I understand that the particular amendment I am moving is outside of the scope of the bill, but it is not unknown in this Parliament for an amendment to a bill that is outside the scope of the bill to be moved. It has happened on other occasions.
The minister mentioned a $25 million turnover. I am not sure where she gets that figure from. It is probably from an economic impact assessment, which of course talks about money spent at a particular event, on a particular event or in a particular area, but if that particular event was not occurring, the money would be spent on something else. In fact my figures state that jumps racing represents 0.71 per cent of turnover in racing and that that figure is in fact reducing. These are not my figures. The RSPCA said:
Wagering has also sharply declined since 2006, as awareness of the welfare issues involved has increased … This is an extremely poor return for the amount of pain and suffering endured each year on jumps racing tracks across Victoria.
I commend my motion to the house.