Page 1076 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are ample opportunities, I believe, to negotiate an outcome here that will achieve a number of positive ends. On that basis, I think it would be a good decision of the Assembly this afternoon to allow the government to undertake this work and to report back in May. Then we can have a subsequent debate at that time in relation to the proposals that the government brings back from those deliberations.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.37): The Greens also do not support Mrs Dunne’s motion, but I also should make it entirely clear that we also do not support the actions that are alleged to have taken place at Parkwood recently. I would first point out that Ms Porter’s motion was not about those. Ms Porter’s motion was about egg production and animal welfare.
However, given that, I will go through Mrs Dunne’s amendments. Her first amendment is about alleged activities. In some ways I have got no problems with putting this in as an amendment, but it just is not the sort of thing that the Assembly should be passing motions about—alleged activities which are, at best, peripheral to the substance of the motion. The substance of Ms Porter’s motion was about egg production in Parkwood. That is what I think this motion is about, and that is what we should concentrate on. In saying that, it is not in any way saying that we are supporting the recent actions at Parkwood. We have been very clear that we do not support them.
We have also been very clear that we think that there is another issue here, the issue of how eggs are produced in the ACT and more broadly. We do have form on this. We have a track record of thinking this is an important issue. We will continue to comment on this being an important issue. So I think that it is simply inappropriate to put the first bit in. It is not relevant.
As to amendment (2), as Mr Barr said, I think this is basically sub judice, and we have continuing resolution 10 which is all about that. No-one has been charged. So from that point of view, I guess there is a slight possibility of Mrs Dunne’s amendment not offending continuing resolution 10, but it has got to be very close. This matter, as I understand it, I assume, is now in the hands of the police. Certainly, if there is any criminal activity, that is whose hands it should be in. We should not be prejudicing any person’s right to a fair trial. I think it is really important that the Assembly should not go around making statements about such things. The Liberal Party may have some inside knowledge, but the only knowledge that I have of this is what has been reported in the Canberra Times. I think on the basis of that, this is simply not appropriate.
It is very clear that all three parties in this Assembly have said that they do not support the alleged recent actions at Parkwood. That is abundantly clear, and that is probably as far as we can go, given the information we have in front of us.
As to amendment (3), I am happy to say that has already been adopted in the previous vote. Amendment (4) states:
… continue to advocate for an agreed national approach to cage egg production through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video