The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.28 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The member for Sydney raised a number of issues during debate in the other place, the majority of which do not relate to the particulars of the bill. The bill contributes to a substantial package of reforms undertaken by the Government over the past year to improve animal welfare. Taken as a whole, it is not what I would describe as tinkering at the edges. I will take a moment to detail these reforms.

First, in January this year, the Government implemented three new standards under the Exhibited Animals Protection Act, which covers all animal exhibitions and includes permanent displays such as zoos, and temporary establishments such as circuses and mobile displays such as reptile displays and animal farms. The three new standards relate to the exhibition of animals at mobile establishments, during temporary removal and seals. The development of these three standards involved extensive consultation with the New South Wales Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee, the New South Wales Fauna and Marine Parks Association, Taronga Zoo and all licence holders.

Secondly, the Government also implemented a revised standard for circus animals in New South Wales. This standard was first developed in New South Wales in 1996 and was subsequently adopted by other States and Territories in Australia. In all, a total of 10 standards are prescribed under the Exhibited Animals Protection Act that contribute to improving the housing and husbandry of animals exhibited or on display. Referencing the standards in legislation also means that the majority of restrictions and rules applying to animal exhibiters are in one place, which improves education about, and compliance with, the standards and the Act.

Thirdly, the New South Wales Government has been working with industry on a national model code for pigs. This will lead to the Government progressing amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulation, implementing sections of the national model code and making standards enforceable to promote the welfare of pigs. These standards will include restricting the use of gestation stalls to the first six weeks of a sow's pregnancy, and requiring industry to increase the minimum size of stalls used during gestation.

Fourthly and most recently, in September the Government introduced new standards for breeding dogs and cats. These standards, developed in consultation with enforcement agencies and industry, require that all people who breed cats and dogs for sale must meet minimum animal husbandry standards as set out in the Animal Welfare Code of Practice—Breeding Dogs and Cats. The new standard requires that written information must be provided to each purchaser to ensure that they are aware of pet ownership responsibilities, such as food, care and shelter requirements; a refund of 50 per cent within three days of the date of sale is offered in writing; animals must not be intentionally mated during the wrong parts of their cycles; a dog or cat must be physically and mentally fit, healthy and free of disease at the time of being mated; and in any two-year period, female dogs must not have more than two litters, and female cats must not have more than three litters, without the written approval of a vet.

The member for Sydney claimed that the new code does not address concerns relating to pedigree breeding. The requirements in the code extend to all types and breeds of dogs and cats—mongrels and pedigrees alike. The member for Sydney also mentioned the recent incident of the sale of Indian Blackbuck Antelopes by the Taronga Western Plains Zoo to a private person in New South Wales to be hunted in a game reserve. The claims that the animals were sold for the purpose of being shot are untrue. Both parties are on record stating this. In addition, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, it is unlawful to operate a game park for shooting purposes in New South Wales.

The member for Sydney also stated that the rate of animals used in experiments had increased. Statistics collected and published in the annual reports of the Animal Review Research Panel, from 2004-05 to 2007-08, show that since 2005 the number of animals used in category 7 procedures has declined by 21 per cent. It is unfortunate that some animals are used in science and research. However, all animal research in New South Wales is carried out under the nationally accepted Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Further, the New South Wales Government is a leader in the protection of animals used in research.

The New South Wales Animal Research Act establishes a veterinary inspectorate as well as an Animal Research Review Panel to oversee the use of animals in research. The review panel includes nominees from animal welfare as well as scientific organisations. No animal research may be carried out without the approval of an animal ethics committee, which includes veterinary, scientific, animal welfare and independent members. The Animal Research Review Panel publishes extensive examples of alternative research methods that require fewer animals or no animals at all, or lessen the impact of procedures on animals. These reforms improve animal welfare in New South Wales.

The bill before the House today adds to the reform package that I detailed earlier. It does this by improving the treatment of animals, particularly those exhibited or on display in zoos, circuses, marine parks and mobile farms. The main aim of the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill is to reduce the risk of animals being mistreated, particularly by repeat offenders. The bill achieves this through changes to the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 and a minor but important change to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. The first amendment to the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 will give the Director General of Industry and Investment New South Wales the power to disqualify a person from holding an authority under this Act for a period of up to five years. An authority includes a licence, approval or permit to exhibit or supervise the exhibition of animals in zoos, marine parks, circuses and other places which exhibit animals to the public. This simple but important change minimises the risk of repeat offenders by preventing a person reapplying for an authority for up to five years, where they have had a previous authority cancelled for misconduct.

The second amendment to the Exhibited Animals Protection Act will provide certainty and transparency about what the director general may consider in determining whether to issue an authority. This amendment will ensure that those authorised to exhibit or supervise the exhibition of animals are competent and informed and have the capacity and desire to treat animals humanely. Again, if a person has not complied with animal welfare rules and regulations, the director general will be able to take this into account when determining whether to grant an authority under this Act.

Specifically, when determining whether to issue an authority, the director general may consider whether the applicant has been convicted or found guilty of an offence against New South Wales animal welfare legislation, being the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, Animal Research Act 1985, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and any instruments made under these Acts. The director general also has to consider whether the applicant has been convicted or found guilty of an offence under any law of another State or Territory or the Commonwealth relating to the keeping or protection of animals.

The director general also has to consider whether the applicant has previously failed to comply with any term or condition of an authority; has previously held an authority that has been cancelled or suspended by the director general; has the capacity to care for animals and comply with this Act and any prescribed standards; has provided false or misleading information, and is a fit and proper person to hold such an authority.

I now turn to the amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. In Victoria and Tasmania, legislation allows the responsible Ministers in these jurisdictions to recognise interstate court orders that prohibit individuals from keeping animals. An amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will give the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries similar powers. The Minister will be able to recognise an interstate court order that prohibits a person from buying or possessing an animal. Once such an order is recognised by the Minister it can be enforced in this State under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

This amendment is supported by the two organisations that investigate the majority of animal cruelty incidents—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [the RSPCA] and the Animal Welfare League. During the 2007-08 financial year in New South Wales, the RSPCA investigated over 13,000 complaints of animal cruelty, with over 800 charges being laid. The prevention of interstate offenders from owning or possessing animals in New South Wales can only contribute to reducing the number of incidences of animal cruelty and reduce the costs for the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League.

The bill also proposes two other minor amendments. Firstly, the bill includes a third amendment to the Exhibited Animals Act to revise the appeal mechanisms under the Act to reduce duplication and costs. Currently, appeals may be heard by either the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries or the Local Court. This amendment will result in a single appeal pathway, straight to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. This will enable appeals to be dealt with by members of the tribunal with appropriate expertise in administrative law. This will be consistent with existing appeal mechanisms in other New South Wales animal licensing legislation. For example, the tribunal currently hears appeals under the Non-Indigenous Animals Act. All of the reforms to the Exhibited Animals Protection Act are supported by the New South Wales Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee and the New South Wales Fauna and Marine Parks Association.

The final amendment proposed in this bill is to the Apiaries Act 1986. The amendment proposes administrative reform for the Australian beekeeping industry to allow exemptions from registration for beekeepers. The amendment will allow for the making of a regulation to provide that interstate beekeepers who are registered in another State can operate in New South Wales for short periods of time without needing to be registered in New South Wales. This approach to interstate registration is consistent with the principles of mutual recognition. It will also reduce the regulatory burden on industry by making it easier for registered beekeepers to conduct their businesses. It will allow beekeepers to follow seasonal sources of nectar and pollen without having to comply with unnecessary administrative requirements. The New South Wales Apiarists' Association and the Australian Crop Pollination Association support the proposed amendment.

All of the amendments contained in this bill are straightforward administrative reforms and are the result of extensive consultation with industry and stakeholders. Once implemented, they will improve the welfare of animals on exhibition or display in zoos, circuses, mobile farms and fauna and wildlife parks in New South Wales, and reduce the opportunity for animals to be mistreated repeatedly. Any steps to improve animal welfare, no matter how small or insignificant they may be perceived, are steps that should be taken and supported by all. Farmers requiring bees for pollination and beekeepers will benefit from reduced market barriers and increased mobility brought about by this bill. All of these proposals are sensible and useful amendments and I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.39 p.m.]: We could call this bill the Wagga Wagga bill; it is so good the Government gave the speech twice; the agreement in principle speech was read in the lower House and the Hon. Penny Sharpe read the second reading speech onto the record in this House. Having said that, the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is a good bill, and the Opposition does not oppose it. Although it is unusual for a government bill, this bill contains worthwhile initiatives that deserve our support. At the outset I contacted the New South Wales Farmers Association, which indicated its concern, in particular with biosecurity. When the House last sat, I spoke to the Minister's advisers, who told me that those concerns on biosecurity and the class of persons had been addressed, after discussions with the New South Wales Farmers Association.

I sent a note to the RSPCA seeking its views on the bill but I am still waiting for a response, which is very disappointing. The RSPCA wants to move into primary industry areas, yet when the Opposition seeks its views on legislation before the Parliament that may have some ramifications for it, there is deathly silence. In fact, the House will deal with another bill today that the RSPCA thought had nothing to do with it, yet we actually received a response in that instance. If the RSPCA is monitoring my speech and I am misrepresenting the organisation because of one person, I am sure someone from the organisation will get back to me. As the Minister correctly indicated, the bill amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to give the Minister the power to recognise interstate court orders that prohibit certain people from buying or keeping animals. That is a logical and proper measure. If someone has acted improperly in another State, we should be cognisant of that fact. The Opposition applauds and supports that measure. It will reduce the risk of a person subject to such an order in another State simply moving to New South Wales to reoffend.

The bill also aims to amend the Apiaries Act 1985. This exemption will enable the making of a regulation to allow interstate beekeepers registered in another State to operate in New South Wales for a three-month period without the need to be registered here. Bees do not recognise State borders. It may be necessary for bees to fly over the Murray River to the other side of the border to obtain the pollen from the flora. This sensible amendment acknowledges the needs of apiarists and the bee industry, which provides a healthy product and is an industry that will become increasingly important for medical purposes in years to come.

The bill amends the Exhibited Animals Prohibition Act 1986 to include a list of matters that relate to an applicant's past actions in caring for animals that the Director General of the Department of Industry and Investment may consider in determining an application for an authority. I wonder why "Agriculture" has been removed from the name. In the new superdepartments, token support is given to food security, yet Agriculture has been removed from the name. The bill also provides the director general with the power to disqualify a person from holding an authority for up to five years and streamlines the appeals process under the Act. The bill contains small but important changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Apiaries Act. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.44 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, which aims to improve animal welfare in New South Wales. It is very important to provide animal welfare and animal protection. The two main bodies given the responsibility for animal welfare are the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare League, which, thankfully, receive many donations from the public and grants from the Federal and State governments. The report of the 2007-08 financial year revealed that the RSPCA investigated more than 13,000 complaints of animal cruelty in New South Wales, with over 800 charges being laid, which confirms the importance of the bill.

Of particular importance is the new provision to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to allow the Minister to recognise and enforce in New South Wales interstate orders made by a court in another State or Territory which prohibits a person from buying or possessing an animal, so as to prevent such persons from keeping animals in New South Wales. At present it is possible for a person charged with abusing animals in another State to meet the court orders but then move to New South Wales and again have animals in their care which they could abuse. That will not be possible under this bill and the Minister will have the power to take action against those persons.

The bill also amends the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 to include a list of matters that relate to an applicant's past actions in caring for animals that the Director General of Industry and Investment New South Wales may consider in determining an application for an authority. It will provide the Director General of Industry and Investment New South Wales with the power to disqualify a person from holding an authority for up to five years where the authority has been cancelled for misconduct. It will streamline the appeals process under the Act by allowing appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal rather than to the Minister or the Local Court. The bill amends the Apiaries Act 1985 to make regulations to allow interstate beekeepers to operate in New South Wales for a limited period of time without registering. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.48 p.m.]: The object of the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend three prior Acts of the Parliament—the Apiaries Act 1985, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986—by giving the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries the power to recognise interstate court orders that prohibit certain persons from keeping animals so that interstate orders will be enforceable in New South Wales, ensuring that such individuals are not repeat offenders here; by providing guidance and transparency in licensing matters and refining the appeal mechanisms resulting in improved animal welfare, reduced costs and less red tape; and by providing for exemptions for registration for a person who brings bees into New South Wales following a crop, if they stay for less than three months and are properly registered in another State.

The real benefits of these amendments are generally administrative and practical, not really for the animals' welfare, except in a minimal way. The amendment to the Apiaries Act 1985 will make it easier for out-of-State bee owners to come to New South Wales on business. Bees do not really care what State they get their flower nectar in, as long as they get it. But the pollination services required by interstate agricultural interests will be more easily obtained with these amendments. Beekeepers will benefit from the resulting freer mobility and fewer obstacles for their bees without borders, and that is sensible. But let us not pretend the bill is about animal welfare.

If we were actually interested in the welfare of bees we would encourage the agricultural industry to minimise the use of chemical insecticides, which are deadly to bees. We would encourage the creation and preservation of bee-friendly habitats in urban environments by allowing more public space to grow wild, rather than be mown down, cut back and cemented over. And since bees need a wide variety of nutrients in their diets from all sorts of plant life, including what are considered "weeds", we could let more native plants grow naturally: a diversity of native plants and flowers in our gardens and public places would provide bees with good food sources throughout the growing season. And we would encourage farmers to avoid seeds coated with systemic insecticides, which are toxic to bees. There has been a huge die-off of bees globally recently, which should be sounding alarm bells to all nations because we are dependent on the pollination carried out by bees for a large proportion of our food crops. But this bill is not about the welfare of the bees.

The honey bee is not a native bee in Australia, according to the Australian Native Bee Research Centre. It was brought to Australia in 1822 to produce honey for the new colony. The Australian native bees have evolved with the wildflowers for millions of years and are very capable of pollinating them but do not make commercially exploitable amounts of honey. Most of them are tiny, delicate, nearly inconspicuous bees that have great difficulty competing with the highly efficient commercial bees that have been introduced from Europe. This bill does not help them either.

The amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 allows the Minister for Primary Industries to recognise interstate court orders that prohibit certain individuals from keeping animals. I question putting any Minister for Primary Industries in the position of judging people who have previously mistreated animals because the framework within which he or she works, that of Primary Industries, by definition perceives animals as pests, research subjects and commodities with or without economic value. I do not recall the current office holder being interested in the welfare of the animals of the Northern Rivers area who were terrified or run over by the vehicles of the Repco Rally tearing up their natural habitats for three days in September. Nor was any concern expressed by the Minister over the welfare of the birds and wildlife in the Sydney Olympic Park where in excess of 250 trees are being torn up on the streets where the V8 Supercar races will be held—against the will of the surrounding residents, local councils and bird conservation groups.

The Minister's advisor regarding feral animal management was thrilled to have shot an elephant in Africa recently—a species with highly developed family life, social organisation and proven intelligence, an awesome creature which, in my estimation, should never be hunted and killed for "sport". But this amendment hopes to minimise the potential for people who have committed acts of animal cruelty interstate in the past from repeating their crime in New South Wales, and that is laudable. The third amendment, to the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986, would empower the Director General of Industry and Investment NSW to consider the past actions and capacity of those applying for licences, approvals and permits to exhibit or supervise the exhibition of animal in zoos, circuses and other establishments that publicly exhibit animals in New South Wales.

Regarding people who keep animals for exhibition, such as travelling circuses, I loved these travelling circuses when I was a kid. Nothing was more exciting for us than when we would see the big vans pulling into town to set up the big tent. But my love for the circuses was well before I had any idea of how the animals they have for show are trained and kept captive in miserable conditions. When I learned the details, I could never overlook their suffering again. If we wanted to help progress the efforts toward a more compassionate treatment of animals, we would seriously consider banning travelling circuses from having exotic animals at all. I well remember learning as a young child Ralph Hodgson's poem:

'Twould ring the bells of Heaven
The wildest peal for years
If the Parson lost his senses
And the people came to theirs,
And he and they together
Knelt down with angry prayers
For tamed and shabby tigers
And dancing dogs and bears,
And wretched, blind pit ponies,
And little hunted hares.

Yet the amendment appears on its face to make sense otherwise. The bill is, after all, supported by the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League, on my contact with them—those overworked, underfunded bodies that pick up the pieces when people shirk their responsibility towards the animal kingdom. With more than 13,000 complaints of animal cruelty investigated by these agencies in 2008 in New South Wales alone, we should be doing a lot more for animal welfare than making minor adjustments to the current legislation and bureaucratic systems. Having got that off my chest, however, I will support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.55 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Greens, not to congratulate the Government on the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: We wouldn't expect that, Lee, don't worry.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection, because Labor is in such a dysfunctional state at the moment. I have congratulated the Government at times, when its legislation is decent. Once again as Government Whip the Hon. Greg Donnelly does such a disservice to his party. As I was saying, I speak on behalf of the Greens, not to congratulate the Government on the Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill but to hold the Government to account for making such minor changes to this State's system of animal welfare when it is crying out for a major overhaul.

The changes will mean that interstate court orders that ban animal keepers will be recognised. The changes will also allow interstate registered beekeepers to operate in New South Wales for up to three months without registering in this State. Together with a couple of other small changes, this is the sum total of the Government's work today to improve animal welfare outcomes in New South Wales. It is an inadequate response to the many areas where tougher animal protection laws are urgently needed. On behalf of the Greens and the many animal welfare activists who devote their lives to improving the welfare and wellbeing of animals, and for the animals themselves, I will take the time to summarise for the Government some of the work it needs to undertake before it can claim any victory for animal welfare in this State.

New South Wales has a legally sanctioned system of animal experimentation that is both cruel and excessive. The mismanagement of animal experimentation in New South Wales has resulted in an increase in animal deaths and suffering. Last year more than 8,000 animals died in legally sanctioned experiments and more than 16,000 animals were subjected to high levels of pain and distress, according to the Animal Research Review Panel 2007-08 report. I reviewed this report when it was released in July this year, and I called on the Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, to take responsibility for this policy failure and for the New South Wales Government to urgently revise the management of animal experimentation.

It was a shocking report that highlighted the failure of the current model for overseeing animal experimentation. The existing regime amounts to self-regulation. There is an urgent need to review how institutions and individuals are issued with licences. New South Wales lags behind other jurisdictions in embracing non-animal alternatives for testing products and education programs. There is now solid evidence that not only are non-animal technologies more humane but they also produce scientifically valid data. The University of Sydney's medicine faculty is taking a lead in promoting computer simulation and interactive practicals that reduce the use of animals. Dr Batmanian in the faculty has created a cardiovascular control practical that replaces the use of approximately 250 rabbits per year. That is clearly a good thing; it shows the potential in this area if it were supported. In light of these developments, it is alarming that in New South Wales the number of animals that die in experiments is increasing. This legislation amendment process was an opportunity to seek more humane ways of testing products, and it is disappointing to see that work missing from the bill.

This month the Greens strongly criticised the shooting of 140 Eastern Grey kangaroos and their joeys—estimated to be almost the entire kangaroo population at the Bathurst 1000 Mount Panorama race site—in preparation for that car race event. In the past the council has herded the kangaroos off the site before the event. It was clearly a dereliction of duty on the part of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Bathurst City Council to allow the kangaroo slaughter when there were other, more humane and ethical ways of managing the possible safety risks to the car drivers. The National Parks and Wildlife Service reportedly issued two licences to Bathurst City Council to conduct the cull, the first for 60 kangaroos and the second for 80. At this time of the year many kangaroos would have had a joey at foot and one in the pouch. A local consulting ecologist—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.