Australian Capital Territory Bills Explanatory Statements Australian Capital Territory Bills Explanatory Statements[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
2012
THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY FOR THE
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL
TERRITORY
ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION (FACTORY FARMING)
AMENDMENT BILL 2012
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Circulated by
Caroline Le Couteur MLA
INTRODUCTION
This explanatory statement relates to the Animal
Welfare Legislation (Factory Farming) Amendment Bill 2012 as presented to the
Legislative Assembly. It has been prepared in order to assist the reader of the
bill and to help inform debate on it. It does not form part of the bill and has
not been endorsed by the Assembly. The Statement must be read in conjunction
with the bill. It is not, and is not meant to be, a comprehensive description of
the bill. What is said about a provision is not to be taken as an authoritative
guide to the meaning of a provision, this being a task for the
courts.
OVERVIEW
The Animal Welfare Legislation (Factory
Farming) Amendment Bill 2012 (the Bill) has three main
elements:
• It makes it illegal to keep hens in a cage system in
the ACT from 1 January 2014.
• It requires the responsible ACT
Government Minister to advocate at the national level for better welfare
conditions for poultry.
• It outlaws sow stalls and farrowing crates so
that only free range pig farming may occur in the ACT.
Hens in cage
systems
The Bill outlaws the practice of keeping chickens for egg
production in a cage system, often called ‘battery cage farming’.
This method of egg production has already been banned by many countries,
including The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, and
Norway, as well as in some states in Canada and the US.
It is widely
recognized that hens kept in caged systems suffer chronically and are one of the
most compromised of all farmed animals. The bill is intended to improve the
quality of life for hens, by requiring egg production only be undertaken using
more humane alternatives.
The ban on cage egg production would take
effect from 1 January 2014 to provide time for cage egg producers in the ACT to
modify their production systems at minimal cost. Currently there is one producer
of cage eggs in the ACT: Parkwood Farm in West Macgregor, which is owned by Pace
Farm. According to details provided by Pace Farm to the National Pollutant
Inventory in 2007 Parkwood Farm employs 14 people.
Although the Bill
would prevent battery cage farming in the ACT, it cannot prevent cage eggs being
imported from other jurisdictions and sold, because of the Commonwealth
Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
National advocacy on improved
poultry conditions
The Bill also requires the responsible ACT Government
Minister to take steps to promote a national ban on cage eggs. The intention is
that other Australian jurisdictions will enact an equivalent ban on battery cage
systems, eventually leading to the elimination of battery cage egg production in
Australia. Other Australian jurisdictions have previously expressed a
willingness to move away from cage systems, but no jurisdiction has yet acted.
Enacting this bill will make the ACT the leading jurisdiction and, in
combination with diplomatic action by the Government and cooperation from
businesses, will stimulate positive action in other States and Territories.
The Bill also recognizes that other poultry housing systems also have
adverse animal welfare impacts. It requires the Minister to promote improvements
to the living conditions for poultry set under the national code (the Model
Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic
Poultry).
Sow stalls
The Bill also addresses intensive pig
farming by banning the use of sow stalls and farrowing crates so that only free
range pig farming may occur in the ACT. In intensive pig farming, pregnant pigs
are confined to sow stalls, also known as gestation crates, to make feed
management easier and prevent the pigs from biting each other. The stalls are
around the same size as the pig, making movement all but
impossible.
Although intensive pig farming does not currently occur in
the ACT, the amendment ensures it will never occur, as well as making a
statement that it is an unacceptable practice. This issue has been recognised in
Tasmania which will phase out sow stalls for pigs, with the first restrictions
taking effect in 2014.
Retail signage for eggs
In
addition, the Bill makes minor improvements to requirements introduced in the
Eggs (Cage Systems) Legislation Amendment ACT 2009 which requires retail
cage eggs to be displayed separately from other eggs, and with descriptive
signage, by retailers in the ACT. There has now been considerable experience
with how this legislation works so it is proposed to make two
changes:
• The first change is to no longer require a red border to
separate the different types of eggs. We understand that some customers see
that red border as sign that there is a ‘sale’ on and it is
therefore misleading; and
• The requirement for labelling is also
being made a strict liability offence to enhance enforcement of the
provisions.
NOTES ON CLAUSES
Clauses 1-3 – Name of Act, Commencement and Legislation amended
These are preliminary clauses setting out the name of the amending act, the
acts and regulations amended and the commencement date.
Clause 2 sets the
starting dates for the different parts of the legislation. The sections of the
bill which:
• require the Minister to begin working with other States
and Territories to improve welfare conditions for poultry;
• amend the
retail display requirements; and
• ban intensive pig farming
begin
the day after the Bill’s notification day.
As the Bill relaxes
requirements for retailers, and there are no existing intensive pig farming
operations in the ACT no phase in time is required.
The sections of the
Bill which ban the production of eggs in a cage system begin from 1 January
2014. This gives the ACT’s caged egg producer time to transition to a
different production method. This should be sufficient time, as cage layer hens
are killed and restocked approximately once per year.
Clause 4
– Repeal of Animal Welfare (Amendment) Act 1997
This clause is
a formal provision to identify that the Bill repeals the Animal Welfare
(Amendment) Act 1997 (A1997-45).
Clause 5 – Magistrates
Court (Eggs Labelling and Sale Infringement Notices) Regulation 2012 – sch
1
This clause will create a new regulation under the Magistrates
Court Act 1930 to allow penalties for the offences in this Act to be given
as infringement notices. The infringement notice will be $550 for an individual,
and five times this amount for a corporation. It is important that infringement
notices can be given to ensure that the law can be enforced in a practical
manner.
Clause 6 – New section 9A - Offence to keep hens in a
cage system
This clause inserts a new section 9A into the Animal
Welfare Act 1992, which makes it an offence to keep hens in a cage system.
It sets a penalty of a fine or imprisonment. This penalty is equivalent to the
penalty for an animal cruelty offense under the current
Act.
Clause 7 New section 9B - ban on factory farming of
pigs
This section inserts a new section 9B into the Animal Welfare
Act 1992, to ensure pigs are only kept in appropriate accommodation.
The section makes it an offence to keep pigs in any accommodation where they
do not have adequate room, comfort and outdoor access. The definition of
‘appropriate accommodation’ ensures that pig farming will be free
range, will accommodate the welfare needs of the pigs, and will not use
farrowing crates and sow stalls.
This change recognises that intensive pig
farming using sow stalls and farrowing crates severely compromise pigs’
welfare. They cause behavioural problems, physical and mental suffering, and are
widely condemned as being a cruel method of keeping animals.
Clause 8
– Exception - conduct in accordance with approved code of practice or
mandatory code of practice, New section 20 (aa)
This clause ensures
that the offence of keeping hens in a cage system will operate, despite the fact
that a code of practice currently deals with welfare of domestic poultry.
Clause 9 Exception—conduct in accordance with approved code of
practice or mandatory code of practice New section 20 (ab)
This
clause ensures that the new section 9B offence of keeping pigs in inappropriate
accommodation will operate, despite the existence of other codes of practice
that deal with pig farming.
Clause 10 – New section 109A –
Banning cage systems etc- national approach
This clause inserts a new
section 109A, which requires the Minister to take all reasonable steps to
promote a permanent ban by States and Territories on the keeping of poultry in
cage systems, and to take all reasonable steps to improve the living conditions
for poultry under the Model Code. The Model Code is made by the Animal Welfare
Committee of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, which comprises
representatives from all State and Territory Governments.
The new section
109A(3) elaborates on the types of actions that constitute ‘reasonable
steps’. There are a number of animal welfare concerns associated with egg
production and the Model Code, and national cooperation is required in order to
review the Model Code, strengthen the Code’s guidelines, and improve the
standards for hens in other egg production systems.
The new section
109A(4) requires the Minister to present a report to the Legislative Assembly
annually on the steps taken to fulfil these obligations.
Clause 11
– Dictionary, note 2
This amendment is consequential on other
amendments that insert provisions in which the term State is used. The
term is defined in the Legislation Act dictionary to include the Northern
Territory. Including this additional dot point directs the reader to this
enlarged definition in the Legislation Act.
Clauses 12-13 New
dictionary definitions for Domestic Animals Act 2000
These
clauses add references to the dictionary that note where various definitions can
be found in the Act.
Clause 14 –Cage eggs – retail
display, Section 7(3)
This clause changes the retail display
requirements in the Eggs (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001, so that the
labeling is still required but the red border is no longer
required.
Clause 15 – 17 – new retail display offence
provisions
These clauses make it a strict liability offence to fail
to adhere to the signage requirements in the Act. This strict liability offence
is justified as the offence is regulatory in nature, would be difficult to
enforce without strict liability, and applies to people operating in a specific,
regulated environment, who should be aware of their obligations. It should be
noted that it is not difficult for retailers to comply with this requirement.
The offence has a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, which is the same maximum
penalty for failing to properly label egg packaging under the Act. The offences
can be enforced with infringement notices, carrying a penalty of $550 for an
individual, and five times this amount for a corporation.
Schedule 1
– New Magistrates Court (Eggs Labelling and Sale Infringement Notices)
Regulation 2012
This schedule inserts the standard regulation which
is used to establish infringement penalties under the Magistrates Court Act
1930. It includes details of the administering authority (Commissioner for
Fair Trading – s5), the infringement notice penalties (section 7), the
required contents of notices and reminder notices, and the authorised people to
serve infringement notices (investigators under the Act –
s11).
Schedule 1 of the regulation establishes an infringement penalty of
$550 for individuals and 5 times this amount for corporations. This applies to
the offences under ss 7(1), 7A(1) and 7B(1) of the Act. It will allow for
practical enforcement of the signage offences by allowing investigators to issue
infringement notices for breaches as an alternative to prosecution.