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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2853 ..

Mr Moore: Without a warrant. They can just go in at any time they like.

MS HORODNY: Yes, but I would argue that that is important, because they need to be able to look at a facility like Parkwood to determine in the first instance whether there is an issue of concern. They do not have any other powers. Under my amendment, they do not have powers to seize sick or dead animals or to seize paperwork or anything like that. All they have the power to do is to actually walk through and see whether there are issues of concern. If they see a problem, they still need either a warrant or the consent of the owner, or, if there is something that is absolutely urgent and it is a life-and-death situation then they can confiscate sick or injured animals. So, the only essential difference is that, instead of giving an institution seven days' notice before they walk through, they can walk through at any time, in much the same way, I would argue, as health inspectors have the ability right now to walk through restaurants or other eating facilities to ensure that there is not a problem in terms of human health in those sorts of facilities.

MR CORBELL (4.33): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party was initially sympathetic to the propositions that have been put forward by Ms Horodny in relation to walk-through powers. However, it has been put to me, by both the Minister and Mr Moore, that these powers are in many ways draconian and out of context with other powers that exist under other pieces of ACT law. I think Mr Moore's point is the convincing one. It is that, really, if we are going to look at the issue of enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, we need to look at it across the board, rather than just in relation to the issue we are debating today, which is the issue of battery hens and the banning of the battery cage in the ACT.

So, like Mr Moore, I indicate that Labor would be willing to look at that further; but we believe that, in the context of the debate today, we should be dealing with the specific provisions to do with battery hen legislation rather than with a wider revamp of the Animal Welfare Act. So, for that reason, we will be supporting the Minister's proposal.

MR MOORE (4.35): I think it is worth making the point at this stage, Mr Speaker - and I think, to a certain extent, Ms Horodny perhaps missed this - that it is not difficult to get a warrant, provided that an argument can be put to a magistrate. Certainly, if I were an inspector, I would know which magistrate I would be going to to ask for a warrant, I have to say - somebody who has already expressed the view that this type of farming is inherently cruel. I just do not think it is that difficult to get a warrant if a reasonable argument can be put forward.

So, whilst I understand why you put this up, and I can understand the reasons behind it, in the end I have to keep a reasonably consistent approach to the way we deal with powers. Certainly, I have resisted this style of power being given to police officers. So, I think we should continue resisting the expansion of this type of power in the hands of bureaucrats, unless there is a check mechanism. The warrant is just that - a check mechanism.

Clauses negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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