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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1570 ..

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries will now mercifully close the debate.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.03), in reply: All I can say about Mr Moore's speech is that it was pretty "eggscruciating". Mr Speaker, I thank members for their contributions to this debate; but I would have to note that members, most of whom have expressed some misgivings about the code, have taken an unusual course of action. What we are debating today is the tabling statement for a code of practice approved under the Animal Welfare Act 1992. As members would be well aware, the code pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act is a disallowable instrument.

Mr Whitecross: It would make it worse if you disallowed that, would it not?

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Whitecross forgets, when he interjects, that disallowable instruments are amendable now. If Mr Whitecross believes that there are some shortcomings in this code, then he had an opportunity, as did Ms Horodny - indeed, if he felt the way he did, he had an obligation - to amend the code in some way to reflect his views or the views of his party. That right has been available for some time. In fact, that right has now expired, because the nine sitting days, or whatever it is, from the tabling of the code have expired. The opportunity has passed.

I would say to members that they have come up against a problem which they have failed to acknowledge in this debate. The issue is not as simple as feeling compassion for domestic animals, in this case poultry, and feeling a desire beating in their hearts that something should be done about it. Mr Speaker, with respect, if they want something done about it, it is up to them to do it. Mr Speaker, I profess as much concern about the position of animals in our society as does anybody else in this place. I have always maintained animals of my own - birds, occasionally reptiles, but generally dogs. I consider myself to have been a responsible pet owner and to have looked after those animals. I certainly feel considerable personal anguish when I see animals suffering.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there are considerable difficulties standing in the way of applying a code which might be more rigorous from the point of view of some in this place who have argued that we need a tighter restriction on the way in which people keep battery hens. The first of those considerations, I suppose, is a philosophical one. We live in a society which, it could be argued, basically operates on the basis of wide-scale exploitation of animals. It uses animals to test drugs which are then made available to humans. It tests other chemicals, including cosmetics, on animals. It uses animals for a whole range of applications, including the production of clothing, handbags and so on. Of course, most fundamentally of all, our society kills and consumes vast quantities of animals every year. I wonder whether any of those contributing to the debate who expressed concern about the position of those animals have in the last 24 hours sat down and tucked into a nice hamburger, a chicken and salad sandwich or something of that kind. I suspect that some have. Mr Speaker, we have to accept - and I pose this as a philosophical issue only in this debate - that our society is built on a very considerable exploitation of animals. We cannot just say that we are personally affronted by particular uses in particular cases; therefore, we will end it. It is a much more complex debate than that.

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