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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 26 September 2007) . . Page.. 2706 ..

Now, there may be very sound arguments for offering assistance to the business operating in the ACT if this bill is passed. Indeed, there is certainty if the proposal of the Greens for a three-month period in which to change production methods is adopted, in contrast to the decision in Europe, where the Greens acknowledge a phasing-out period for battery hens of 13 years. The Greens say that there is consensus about the cruelty of battery hen production facilities, and indeed the Greens cite a survey saying that more than 80 per cent of people say that battery hen egg production is cruel. Unfortunately, the reality is that public attitudes do not necessarily translate into buying habits, and around 80 per cent of the volume of egg sales in Australia still are cage eggs. Perhaps what is required is an extensive public education program that will lead to a change in buying habits, habits that are driven, typically, by price.

Our consideration of Dr Foskey’s bill, particularly through the supporting amendment that I will move on behalf of Mr Stefaniak in the detail stage—if it gets that far—provides the ACT with an important opportunity to demonstrate national leadership with this issue. I note the Chief Minister said he wants a nationally consistent approach. Well, I take it from that that the Labor Party, therefore, will be voting to support our amendment, which legislates for that nationally consistent approach to occur.

We can do something positive about this issue today. We can do it collectively, and give as much strength as possible from the ACT to the national effort to remove battery hen farming.

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (3.55): In collaboration with Dr Foskey, I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

It was the government’s understanding that Mr Smyth was proposing to adjourn the debate, but I understand that, as a result of a lack of communication or sheer perversity, that was not achieved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned to the next sitting.

Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Bill 2005

Debate resumed from 17 August 2005, on motion by Mrs Dunne:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.56): The government will be opposing Mrs Dunne’s amendment to the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act. Mrs Dunne presented the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment

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