Page 3957 - Week 11 - Thursday, 26 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
right to sue and, in some circumstances, criminal liability. This is not something that we should be building into our legislation without a lot of care and qualification.
We recognise that the objects of the act are not operative clauses within this bill. However, the objects of the act will be looked to by judges to determine the intention of this place in disputes arising under this new law.
Section 4A(1)(c) in its current unqualified form could potentially be interpreted as prohibitive against many acceptable, responsible, humane and common environmental, commercial and recreational activities. So my amendment qualifies that duty and expressly notes that the objects of the act will not prohibit responsible and humane food production practices, environmental management, scientific research and recreational activities.
These amendments are not a free pass to be cruel to animals under the above circumstances. There is a protection for responsible and humane practices in line with community expectations. My proposed amendment means that farmers can be assured that they will not be penalised for herding or agricultural practices. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for City Services, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Recycling and Waste Reduction, Minister for Roads and Active Travel and Minister for Transport) (11.45): We believe that these amendments seek to make the bill more ambiguous and harder to enforce, when the intention of the bill is to take stronger action on those committing animal welfare abuses and to make it easier to enforce.
Ms Lawder’s amendments to clause 4 of the Animal Welfare Bill seek to qualify the objects of the act, and, in doing so, make them more ambiguous. One of the key objects of the bill is to recognise animals as sentient beings. The proposed new section that they seek to add could be seen to limit this sentience for reasonable and humane purposes such as scientific research.
We also note that the objects of the act are objects only and that, in interpreting the legislation, the act should be read as a whole. Regard should be given to other provisions in the act. For example, the current act already sets out provisions requiring a licence for using an animal for research or teaching, and the bill does not propose to change this. The current act, as it stands, already establishes four codes of practice to be made under the bill, and those also can be used in interpreting the act.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.46): It will surprise no one that the Greens will not be agreeing to this. One of the reasons why we think it is so important to establish the concept that animals are sentient beings and that we do have some responsibility to them is to change some of the practices in these areas.
On food production, I talked earlier about how the Greens have been campaigning, successfully now, to get rid of the practices of battery hen production and sow stalls. Those are things we do not want to see. On scientific research, I think we have all heard absolute horror stories of vivisection and things that have been done to animals
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video