Page 4103 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Y.” We have to actually look at it. It is not a big enough piece of land to undertake a substantial free-range farm. Yes, Pace are free-range farmers elsewhere and they actually know what is required to have a free-range farm or a barn farm, because they do that as well. They know what is required, and they know it is not viable here in the ACT. They have told us so, if we cared to ask. The Greens did not care to ask, and they are making presumptions about Pace, which I do not care to do. That is why we are opposing this clause.
Clause 4 negatived.
Clause 5.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (5.22): The government will be opposing this clause. This clause removes the current defence against a charge of animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act of complying with the approved code of practice for domestic poultry. The ACT has an approved code; it has been in force since December 2002 and it replaced an earlier code of practice. I think it is odd—I am sure other members would also think it is odd—to say in one breath, “Here is a code of practice which we require you to follow,” and then in the next breath to say, “But if you do follow the code you’ve committed an offence.” I just do not think it is an appropriate way of constructing an offence provision to say it is an offence if you comply with an agreed national code of practice.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.23): Well, we were hoping to show national leadership, which it seems we will not be showing. I would just like to comment on Mrs Dunne’s comments about talking to Pace. We did attempt to talk to Pace, but they did not wish to conduct that conversation.
Clause 5 negatived.
Clause 6.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (5.23): The government will oppose this clause. I think it is important that the Assembly not agree to this clause. This clause adds nothing to the current rights and powers of the Assembly to critique government action or to demand through this chamber action by government. Assembly members can raise the issue of poultry welfare through question time, through questions on notice, through debates, through particular debates on matters of public importance, through media pressure and through direct lobbying of ministers. Members have those powers now.
The requirement to take reasonable steps to improve living conditions for poultry under the model code is also limited to improvements to the fourth edition of the code. So if that code were to be updated the minister would still be forced to try to improve the redundant code. The model code may be considered and improved and updated,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .