Page 4082 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While I do acknowledge that I have not received enthusiastic support to date, most particularly from the large egg-producing states, I have received encouragement to varying degrees from a small number of jurisdictions. The ACT’s proposal moved by me at the primary industry ministerial council for a national phase-out of cage egg production did gain support from ministers of Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The ministers have scheduled a review of the husbandry standards in 2010, and this could be another opportunity to prosecute the case for a phase-out. The ACT government also remains committed to leading by example. That is why the ACT government sources the hundreds of dozens of shell eggs it uses each week from barn or free-range producers, with barn-laid eggs being the first choice.
This bill seeks to insert a new section into the Animal Welfare Act 1992. The new section 9A would come into effect on 1 January 2011 and would create an offence of confining a hen in a cage system—effectively banning battery or cage egg production in the ACT. The proposed offence provision works in an unusual way—a person commits an offence if they keep a hen in a cage in compliance with the model code of practice for the welfare of animals: domestic poultry. So, effectively the legislation would make complying with a code an offence. I have to say that, as a matter of general principle, crafting offences in such a manner should be avoided.
The proposed offence—the offence of complying with the national model code, if you like—is silent on the implications of keeping a hen in a cage but not complying with the model code. Presumably, the idea is that this would be dealt with under one of the other offences currently under the Animal Welfare Act.
Should a ban on cage egg production be imposed, Pace Farm has indicated that it would shut down its ACT business. Pace Farm’s egg production makes up approximately almost half of the territory’s primary production output in dollar terms. It contributes $3.2 million per year to the local economy and employed 56 people in the last financial year. If this bill were passed, these jobs would be lost to the ACT community. These are blue-collar workers, and I am led to believe that the majority of the workers are, indeed, women.
Under the bill, the responsible minister would also be compelled to promote a permanent national ban on keeping poultry in cage systems and take all reasonable steps to improve the living conditions for poultry under the fourth edition of the model code made by the animal welfare committee under the primary industry ministerial council. The bill also requires the responsible minister to annually present a report to the Assembly within five working days after 1 July each year to detail actions taken.
The proposed legislated requirement for ministerial action is also, I have to say, unusual. This is a case of the legislature telling the executive what to do and to hold a particular policy line on a particular matter. While I acknowledge that there is no definitively clear line between the role of the legislative and executive arms of government in the ACT, under the Westminster system, this bill represents a peculiar and, I believe, unnecessary intrusion into the responsibilities of the executive.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .