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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2805 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Why is that the case? It is a part of the whole way chooks operate in terms of their pecking order. I think chooks are inherently very cruel to each other. I have watched them at times in my own backyard, and the way they single out a particular chook and then peck at it is quite interesting.

I consider this a very important issue, so when I was overseas I looked at some farms in Switzerland run in the sorts of ways that Ms Horodny has been suggesting would be entirely appropriate. Indeed, I have tabled a report to the Assembly on my observations at those farms. It was very interesting that one of the farmers running a barn system drew my attention to the fact that if they allow light to come in the chooks peck each other. The light cannot come in in columns. It has to come through windows that are translucent. It cannot be direct light. It is a very interesting thing. Who knows how they discovered it? Perhaps we have to learn the best ways to keep these animals.

My view on this issue has oscillated. Perhaps I am being a little anthropomorphic. I think that keeping chooks in a small cage with food and water may not be enough and is inherently cruel. That is why I will be supporting this legislation. I consider that we have had a very productive approach to this legislation. I have discussed the issue with Ms Horodny on a number of occasions and with Mr Corbell. Very soon after Mr Corbell was elected we began discussions on this issue. I believe Mr Corbell visited some of the same farms as I did. We discussed what we had observed.

In many ways I feel saddened by the approach that has been taken in the advertising campaigns on this issue. I think they have misled the public in an emotive way instead of looking at the issue in a rational way. I believe that ordinary people do not need to be convinced in that sort of emotive way. When you do run campaigns like that there is always the risk that they will backfire.

The issue we have always discussed here and the issue in the public arena has always been about battery hens and how we are going to deal with them. The legislation actually goes further than that, however, and that is why I have circulated an amendment. The legislation also takes into account animals that are used for scientific research. I indicated to Ms Horodny earlier today that I am quite happy to debate that issue; but, if she wants to raise that issue, then she should do it with separate legislation. The issue has always been about battery chooks and we should separate that issue. That is why I will move an amendment to remove that part. We will get back to that when we get to the detail stage of the Bill.

Mr Humphries raised the extraordinary powers that we give to inspectors. I must say that in my reading of the Bill I missed that. I have said on many occasions on other issues in this Assembly that, if there is good reason for an inspector or a bureaucrat to invade somebody's business, then that inspector ought to be able to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant. It does not take long. Often it is a matter of a simple phone call. The extraordinary powers that Mr Humphries talked about are an important issue. I hope that Mr Humphries will be moving an amendment - certainly, I will be prepared to support it - so that an inspector who has reasonable grounds for carrying out an immediate inspection has to go through the normal magistrate process. That is the appropriate way to go.

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