Page 1220 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
based on aspects, Madam Deputy Speaker. These words suggest a significant departure from the national code.
Why was not the national code adopted in full? There is no discussion of that in the explanatory statement. Have other jurisdictions adopted the code? Again, there is no discussion. All of this serves to underscore the concern I have about the advice I have been given in departmental briefings on this bill, and I thank the minister for arranging those briefings. That advice was that over time the ACT and, indeed, other states and territories may seek to vary the national model codes to include their own perceived jurisdictional peculiarities.
The explanatory statement for this bill states that the purpose of the national code is to “create consistent animal welfare regulation across Australia”. It seems to me somehow unfortunate that this ACT government is talking already about future inconsistencies even before the national consistencies are developed. But it is not just talking about it; it has actually implemented a poultry regulation outside of the national approach. What will that do to the national approach and the goodwill that is being built between primary industry ministers through their council?
This minister’s approach flies in the face of the work of the council and it runs the risk of undermining everything that the council is trying to achieve in relation to consistent approaches to animal welfare. If every state and territory does what this ACT government intends to do, the whole work of the council will be a nonsense and it will end up being for nought. In 15 years time we will find ourselves again espousing the virtues of national consistency and striving to achieve it. We will have to start the whole process over again. There are considerable implications for what the government has done here today and in the run-up to this debate.
Inconsistencies will also challenge the mutual recognition policies that operate in this country. What is the point, for example, of different animal transport codes across the nation? What if the ACT had more stringent animal transport codes than New South Wales? What if a northern New South Wales trucking company, complying with the New South Wales code of practice but not the ACT code, were to transport cattle, for example, through the ACT to Cooma?
Under the mutual recognition policy, the transport company could claim that their compliance with the New South Wales code is sufficient to comply with the ACT, notwithstanding the ACT code being more stringent. Thus, Madam Deputy Speaker, an inconsistency would be meaningless. So why has the ACT Labor government just introduced the poultry welfare code before it has been developed as a national code? What is wrong with the minister working with his interstate colleagues to ensure that the code is developed collaboratively so that a national approach can be agreed and then adopted by all jurisdictions?
We all know how this ACT government has an aversion to collaboration and consultation, so a go-it-alone approach will come as no surprise to anyone. That said, such a failure should not stop the passage of this bill. It is a step forward for the advancement of animal welfare not only in the ACT but across Australia. But will the ACT be patient enough to work with the other states and territories? It does not seem that they are up until now but I hope they will in the future. So once again the ACT
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video