Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2799 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Clause 4 is a clause which currently puts in place the ban on keeping hens in cages which is to commence on 1 July 1999. Clause 5 is a subsequent amendment relating to codes of practice. Labor's amendment would have the effect of allowing the ban on battery cage hens to have effect six years after the granting of an exemption under the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act to allow the ACT to ban the sale of battery eggs in the ACT. This amendment indicates Labor's support for the banning of the battery cage whilst recognising the requirement for exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act to ban the sale of battery eggs in the ACT and, importantly, the industry's need for certainty and the time to restructure.

The Minister made some points about competition policy. My understanding of the Mutual Recognition Act is that it is part of an agreement on competition policy. We are a party to that agreement and we have to work within the provisions of that agreement. One of the provisions of that agreement is that any State or Territory which is a signatory to the Mutual Recognition Act can seek an exemption. There is no constraint on what a State or Territory can seek an exemption for. We are perfectly entitled to go to all the other States and Territories and the Commonwealth and say, "We believe there should be an exemption because of our community's concern about battery cage production". That is allowed for in the Act. We will have to convince every State and Territory government and the Commonwealth to allow that exemption. Those are the provisions of the Act. For the Minister to suggest that we cannot do this is wrong. Because we are a signatory to this Act, we can seek an exemption. The Labor Party is saying, "Yes, we do have to work within the national constraints imposed upon us and agreed to by us in the Mutual Recognition Act, and that is why we seek an exemption before we proceed any further".

The second amendment which the Labor Party is proposing is in relation to the Greens' proposal to repeal section 20 of the Animal Welfare Act. Section 20 relates to codes of practice in the care of animals. Repealing section 20 would have extensive and, in Labor's understanding, unforeseen effects on the application of codes of practice for other areas of animal welfare, notably areas to do with the use of animals in scientific research and experimentation. Labor's amendment ensures that a code of practice is not a defence only in relation to battery cage farming once a ban is in place. We believe this was the original intention of the Greens' amendments. We believe that the abolition of this defence should apply only in relation to battery cage farming once a ban on battery cage farming is in place. We believe that any other attempts to change codes of practice and remove them as a defence in relation to research involving the use of animals or any other such areas is inappropriate and should be dealt with separately in another Bill and can be given proper consideration in that context.

The third amendment the Labor Party is proposing is in relation to walk-through powers in clause 7. The Minister has made some important points about walk-through powers and I understand that he may very well be moving some amendments on this matter. I have also seen the amendment that Mr Moore has circulated and, I understand, will move later in this debate. The Labor Party is happy to cooperate with both Mr Moore and the Government on this issue. We do have some concerns about those walk-through powers and would be happy to examine any amendment the Government puts forward on that matter.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .