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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 6 Hansard (22 June) . . Page.. 1767 ..

2. Police did not use an earlier inspection report to suggest to the RSPCA official that she had no need to use her emergency powers to enter the Farm. When the Senior RSPCA Inspector arrived at the Farm (at the request of Animal Liberation) she was provided with a full briefing by Police on all of the available information. This briefing included reference to the prior inspection report and the Inspector was shown a copy of the report. The Inspector was also informed that the owners of the property had not given their consent for her to inspect the property. The decision to obtain a Warrant to enter the premises or to utilise the Emergency Powers of Entry under section 83 (3) (c) of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 was a decision to be taken by the RSPCA Inspector herself. It was the RSPCA Inspector's decision not to enter the premises.

3. Police did not allow the media to enter the farm to get a response from Parkwood Management. Parkwood Management expressly declined a request to be interviewed by the media. Permission was however given by Parkwood management for the media to conduct an interview on the premises with a representative of the Australian Federal Police. The Police Officer concerned chose not to be interviewed in the presence of the protesters.

4. The ACT Government Veterinarian was not presented with any dead hens to examine. His efforts were directed to disinfecting the shed entered by trespassers to minimise the risk of an outbreak of Newcastle Disease. The facilities were under bio-security control at the time of the Animal Liberation raid following suspected outbreaks of Newcastle Disease in NSW as advised by the Egg Marketing Board.

5. This question assumes that there were in fact breaches of the Code. Allegations to this effect have been made to the Government but with one exception (see below), Animal Liberation has not supplied the Government with any supporting evidence.

The most frequently made allegation of breaches of the Code is in fact not a breach of the Code but a misinterpretation by members of Animal Liberation of the requirements of the Code. Animal Liberation alleges that in 500 cages, hens have access to only one water nipple. However, the Code requires that hens have access to two drinking points, either drinkers, nipples or cups. Previous inspections have shown that the typical arrangement at Parkwood is for water to be supplied by way of a nipple with a cup located directly underneath the nipple.

Independent veterinary reports supplied recently by Animal Liberation will be taken into account in reviewing the allegations.

6. (a) There have been 12 inspections of the Farm since October 1995.

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