Page 2322 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move:
Omit paragraphs (3)(a) to (3)(c), substitute:
“(3)(a) ensure accurate information about the rationale and conduct of all culls is made available to the community prior to the annual commencement of culling;
(b) ensure that, in the context of culls being undertaken for biodiversity purposes, the feasibility of utilising kangaroo carcasses for consumption is fully examined in advance of future culling activity, taking full account of legislative, regulatory, social, environmental and market issues; and
(c) by the last sitting day in 2010, report to the Assembly on the progress of this work and arrangements for the utilisation of carcasses in future kangaroo culling operations.”.
The next version of my amendment is almost identical to the previous one except it removes paragraph (b) of my previous one, which seemed to be the one that was a point of concern for some members. This new version picks up on Mr Stanhope’s amendment, which I largely support, but paragraph (a) seeks to insert that accurate information should also be made available about the rationale as well as the conduct of the culls and that it should be done prior to the commencement of the cull. The second change is that paragraph (c) inserts that the context for which culls are being undertaken is for biodiversity purposes. It simply adds that, in the context of looking at commercial disposal options for the carcasses, we are reminded that this is in the context of undertaking a biodiversity-driven kangaroo management exercise.
Question put:
That Mr Rattenbury’s amendment to Mr Stanhope’s proposed amendment be agreed to.
A call of the Assembly having commenced—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Mr Rattenbury, can I clarify with you, please, that the amendment that we are now voting on is your motion to amend 3(a) to 3(c), that page, which has three parts to it?
Mr Rattenbury: Yes.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Not the one which has “omit 1(a)” and has two parts to it?
Mr Rattenbury: Correct.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video