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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2852 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

which is why I had originally circulated my amendment to clause 7. Over lunchtime, I was able to look back over those powers, look at the powers within the Animal Welfare Act at the moment, and then try to work out for myself to what extent I felt that opposing these clauses would undermine what Ms Horodny set out to do as her prime objective, which was the protection of battery hens. I felt that, whilst the wider powers would clearly make it much easier for inspectors to check battery hens, they were not necessary in terms of her specific goal, which was to get rid of battery hens in the long term.

Mr Speaker, when I look back through the legislation it seems quite clear to me that the kinds of powers available in the Act already are sufficient to achieve what she wants. Let me give an example. Under section 81 of the Act, an inspector has the power to approach a magistrate and say, "I am very concerned. I want to go and inspect a battery farm straightaway because I consider that there are some problems there". In fact, if an inspector were concerned, for example, about Parkwood, then he or she would only have to refer to some of the concerns that Magistrate Ward raised in his finding not so long ago and say, "Clearly, one magistrate has looked at this and believes that there are concerns about what is going on there. I think it is appropriate that I check that there is no cruelty being practised on that farm in that organisation", and would therefore be able to get a warrant for an inspection.

So, those powers do exist - although not in the same measure as they are provided in Ms Horodny's Bill. There is no question that the powers she is seeking in putting her legislation up are very wide powers. They are the same powers that I have objected to on quite a number of occasions when they have been put up by other members of this Assembly over the last eight or nine years. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, I believe that the parts of the legislation we have already passed stand on their own. The Animal Welfare Act as it exists already provides very widespread powers for inspection where there is a concern, and I think those widespread powers are enough. If Ms Horodny wants to argue - and I would be happy to talk to her over the next few weeks - that the whole of the Animal Welfare Act needs to have its spine stiffened because of the powers, that is another question. I do not think it does. I think it has enough, but I would be prepared to discuss that issue with her. I am happy to support this legislation in principle for what its prime goal is. I will continue that. But I am going to join Mr Humphries in opposing these particular clauses.

MS HORODNY (4.30): Mr Speaker, Mr Moore brought up with me this morning the fact that he is not comfortable at this point in extending to research institutes the increase in powers that we are talking about. That is fair enough. He should have been aware, but he was not aware, that this legislation actually extended to the research and teaching institutes. I am quite happy to leave that for the moment.

The other issue that Mr Moore has just brought up is the fact that he thinks that under my amendments there are too many powers given to the inspectors to walk through. The only significant difference under my amendments is that, rather than giving the seven days' notice as required under the Act, an inspector could walk through without giving notice.

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