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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3082 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Voting against the amendment that she puts up today is about protecting the national agreements that are made about protecting the integrity of our national food system. If we interfere with a national code, why shouldn't somebody else take their turn and say, "Look, what is important to us is strawberry jam. We think it should have more strawberries in it, or less strawberries or something else." The code breaks down even before it starts. That is the fundamental reasoning that underlies this. We have an agreement and we will have a national standard. Therefore we should deal with the egg labelling issue separately from the issue of the Food Bill.

I look forward to seeing the bill that Mr Corbell has indicated he will table tomorrow, and I look forward to the continuation of the egg labelling scheme that the Greens, through Ms Horodony, introduced into this Assembly.

MS TUCKER (5.38): I would like to respond to a couple of issues. Yes, of course, if we have the same outcome, the Greens are happy with that. I am not sure that we will. Because of the pressure of this working week, I do not know exactly what Mr Corbell's bill says. I am hoping that it has battery cage-

Mr Corbell: You have a copy of it. Your office has a copy of it.

MS TUCKER: I know my office has a copy. I just explained, Mr Corbell, that under the pressure of business in the last day I have not read it. I want to know-

Mr Berry: What is wrong with you, Kerrie? Have you gone soft or something?

MS TUCKER: You can clarify this for me, if it is not too much trouble, although it probably would be because you did not want to tell me that you were changing your vote, and that you had totally changed your position since I last talked to Mr Corbell, but that's fine; I am sure he is a busy man, too. But maybe he could explain whether or not he is using the same words in his bill, or is he adopting the words of the national code which gives labels to say "caged".

Mr Moore: You will have a week to look at it.

MS TUCKER: I think it would be useful for this debate if Mr Corbell-

Mr Corbell: I am using exactly the same words.

MS TUCKER: Exactly the same. That's great. Okay. So that is one thing I am reassured about. Mr Corbell put up a rather silly argument about administrative arrangements and who would be auditing, and he thinks it is true; but it is my understanding that, just through changing administrative arrangements, you can decide who will be monitoring and regulating particular areas. I am interested to hear whether that is incorrect, as I have it on good advice.

Anyway, the more important point I want to make to Mr Moore is about this obsession with national codes. I have to repeat that there is a danger when we have this level of commitment to national codes because it is a race downwards. Mr Moore chose to use the example of strawberry jam with not enough strawberries in it. I think that is a little bit offensive. If you look at where such exemptions apply, there are important

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