Page 1221 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
will lead the way into the abyss of inconsistency, confusion and malcontent if they do not change their ways.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Canberra Liberals will support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill today, but we do highlight the concerns that we have about the approach that this government is taking which will undermine a move towards national consistency.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.23): The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 2010 makes a minor change to the existing Animal Welfare Act. It simply gives the minister the power to make mandatory codes of practice under the act. This will mean that in future the minister can introduce mandatory codes of practice in the ACT. As Mrs Dunne has said, this is expected to happen only after the national Primary Industries Ministerial Council has reviewed and endorsed these codes. The Greens do not oppose making this change. Of itself, it basically does nothing. It just allows for possible future changes. So while it could be useful in the future, right now it will do nothing for any animals in the ACT.
However, I want to make it clear that the system of animal welfare being operated through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, and implemented through its codes of practice, is unsatisfactory. This bill simply perpetuates that system. I also want to make the point that the harmful effects of this system of factory farming are perpetuated by the fact that the government spruiks these kinds of bills as being great for animal welfare, and by claiming that the ACT leads the nation when it comes to the welfare of poultry.
When we debated Ms Porter’s motion—Madam Deputy Speaker, it was your domestic animal welfare motion—last week I raised the point that our animal welfare bills apply inconsistently. Domestic animals are well protected, but agricultural animals—like other animals that we humans see as commodities—are terribly mistreated. Mr Hargreaves said to me during that debate that we are on exactly the same path to protect all animals and that the government will introduce a massive, brilliant piece of legislation so good that I will cry about it in the town square.
I am sorry, Mr Hargreaves, but if this is the legislation you were talking about, plus the animal welfare regulation that Mr Stanhope has just presented, then I have to disagree. Neither of them is good for animal welfare. I do not agree that it is brilliant. I am afraid that the Greens and the government are not on the same page after all. As I said during the debate on the motion last week, agricultural animals are treated at a much lower standard than domestic animals, and this legislation continues to allow their mistreatment.
I want to briefly discuss these issues so that you understand the context in which we are debating the bill today. I am sure the government is aware that animal protection and animal rights movements have been growing in strength in Australia. For example, sales of non-cage eggs in the ACT increase every year. In the order of 80 per cent of ACT consumers say that they think battery cages are cruel. When I introduced a bill last year to ban battery cage farming it was clear there was significant popular support.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video