Speech in Parliament – Animal Welfare (Jumps Racing) Amendment Bill
28/09/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (22:29): I rise to speak to this bill and to indicate that I will be supporting it, but, before I go on any further, I would like to add something of an ad-lib response to comments made by the Hon. Mr Stephens. I note, first, that, of course, he made specific mention of the importance of respect in this debate, and indeed I consider that the Hon. Mr Stephens and I have always had a very amicable relationship, so these comments which I am about to make are very much off the cuff and are in no way intended as a personal attack. However, they occurred to me as I was listening to him speak and I felt that they are important to raise.
First, if I recall correctly, the Hon. Mr Stephens said that he is not interested in receiving 300 emails tomorrow morning—
The Hon. T.A. Franks: He said 3,000.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Well, the number is somewhat irrelevant, I think. He is not interested in receiving 3,000 emails tomorrow morning about his stance on jumps racing, but I would consider, to put it bluntly, that it is his job to receive those emails; and, indeed—
The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Can I say that, from South Australians, I am happy to take them; from people throughout the world, I’m not interested.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There will be no debating across the chamber.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Of course, we may not always come to the chamber representing exactly what is put in those emails or letters to us but, as parliamentarians, I believe that we do have a duty to carefully consider the opinions and the beliefs of the people of this state who we were elected to serve.
Whilst I would not wish to take that comment out of the spirit in which I am sure it was intended (which is a good one), I think that it is important that we remain mindful of that potential impact. Also, I mention the fact that the Hon. Mr Stephens uses members of the Liberal Party’s own pets as examples of their commitments to animal welfare. Now, to a certain extent, that is very relevant. I have recently become the stepmother to Pickles, our three-legged cat—not quite biological but the mother of Kirby, the bitey, beautiful beagle. I think that it is important to note also that Kirby—who, yes, is named after Justice Michael Kirby—was adopted on the same day that the Hon. Mr Hunter adopted his beautiful dog, Zoe.
Whilst I would consider that my adoption of these animals is somewhat indicative of my commitment to animal welfare, I have always had goats, horses and dogs—all manner of pets—throughout my life, I do not consider that they are entirely indicative of my commitment to animal welfare as a whole. To me, using that argument is a bit like saying that, because I have been able to provide a good life for myself or a good life to those with disabilities who are immediately around me (my family members, some of my very best friends) that that should go far enough to demonstrate my commitment to the people with disabilities in this state, and I certainly do not believe that is the case, so I do not think that argument stands up to scrutiny. Anyway, my rant is complete.
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley will be glad to know that my ad lib is henceforth complete. I am sure my advisers will also be very glad since I have diverted from the path of scripted righteousness, but I will now continue. I have thought long and hard about this bill, because I know that, while there may only be a few jumps racing professionals in our state, they are passionate about their industry. However, after a lot of thinking and consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is no valid reason for sacrificing horses in such great numbers and in such brutal ways; and, of course, I want to take a little time to explain to you how it is that I have reached this conclusion.
There can be no denying our society’s close relationship with the horse. The extraordinary thing about that relationship is its ability to survive irrelevance during the past century. Since horses ceased to be useful for their original man-made purposes (since we have outmoded them with cars and tractors, for example) we have sought to artificially keep them in our lives. They have been pushed to the fringes as cities grow, but in Japan, for example, you will still find horses living in stable blocks on the 20th floor, and in Australia horses are almost alarmingly accessible. Although they are largely unnecessary in some senses, we have gone to considerable lengths to keep them around.
The industry most successful in reigniting the relevance of the horse is racing, which in Australia is by far the most economically worthwhile equestrian pursuit. However, while our original reason for supporting the racing industry may have been to maintain that strong bond between horses and people, we must now wonder if we have lost sight of that goal.
Is racing still about keeping horses in our lives, respecting and exercising their strength and beauty, or has it grown into a thing all of its own, where the punt and the dollar have eclipsed any thoughts of animal welfare and animal will? I think some of the flat racing practices we see in modern Australia are certainly questionable, but, given the context of this bill, my concerns about flat racing are nowhere near as urgent as my concerns about jumps racing.
I will not repeat the stats about jumps racing deaths, which the Hon. Tammy Franks recited when introducing the bill, nor will I list the states and territories in Australia which have already chosen to outlaw the so-called sport, because I do not think these facts are in dispute and they certainly have already been discussed. What seems to be in dispute in this debate is whether jumps racing horses are happy and whether the number of deaths and serious injuries the sport occasions are acceptable.
To me, the clear answer to this question is that the number of deaths and serious injuries is not acceptable. There is a difference between what you might call ‘accidents’, which happen in everyday sport, and what we see in jumps racing. While I in no way wish to imply that the deaths and injuries which occur in jumps racing are deliberate, I do not think they can be termed ‘accidents’ either. The deaths and injuries are an intrinsic part of jumps racing, and it is obvious that the sport cannot take place without injuries occurring.
We have seen various governing bodies in Australia attempt to alter the rules and regulations of jumps racing to stop these deaths, and it has not worked. This is because running and jumping in a pack is not natural or normal for horses and therefore will inevitably cause a problem when horses are made to perform this task. Jumps racing deaths and injuries are not accidents: they are an expected consequence of the sport’s content. That, to me, is not acceptable. It is also not what I want our society’s relationship with horses to be.
I believe that jumps racing represents a departure from a common-sense, ethical way of incorporating these animals into our lives, and so I believe it must stop. It seems that others are coming onside with this argument, most notably the Law Society, which last week acknowledged that jumps racing could well be considered illegal already. I hope that we can continue to strengthen our cause with this bill and that in the future we can again be proud of how we keep horses relevant in modern culture, relevant in our lives and therefore relevant in their own.
