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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 116 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Horodny for the question, which was not entirely unexpected. No, I will not apologise to those protesters. I have read His Worship's judgment. I have a responsibility as Attorney-General - whatever my views as Minister for the Environment with responsibility in these areas - to defend the integrity and the independence of magistrates in our judicial system. Therefore, I am not going to rise in this place and express a view - my own view or my view wearing a hat as another Minister - about the work, the integrity or the judgment of any of those magistrates.

However, Mr Speaker, the Government does not resile from its views about the issue at Parkwood Eggs. I note from that judgment that there was little or no evidence presented by Parkwood about the nature of conditions at the farm. If His Worship was saying that there was a valid excuse for members of the public to enter into Parkwood Eggs on that occasion to make a particular point - I did not sit in judgment on his case - I have to accept the integrity of his judgment and, as Attorney-General, I do so; but, as Minister for the Environment, I have to emphasise that I am not in any position to encourage or support people who do trespass against private property in the Territory. That is my view. That is the view that we will take in this matter.

I also have to say that the judgment does not change the Government's view about the legislation which has been brought forward and which you have claimed is now vindicated by the decision of Mr Ward. The fact remains that the legislation is fatally flawed, in that it will attempt to ban the sale of battery eggs in the ACT but, in fact, it has no capacity to prevent the sale of those eggs across the border and the importation across the ACT, and indeed cannot effectively prevent the sale of those eggs even within the ACT.

Ms Horodny: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not actually ask anything about the legislation, Minister. I asked whether, if you have confidence in your magistrate, you would make a public statement.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Ms Horodny. Mr Humphries is answering the question.

MR HUMPHRIES: Actually, Mr Speaker, she did not ask me whether I support my magistrate; she asked me whether I would apologise to the protesters; and the answer is no, I will not.

MS HORODNY: I will ask a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Minister, does this mean that you do not have confidence that your own magistrate can reach an impartial, well-considered and legally sound decision?

MR SPEAKER: Minister, that is asking for an expression of opinion.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is such a silly question, Mr Speaker. If I moved to sack or had to resign every time I disagreed with the opinion of a magistrate, I would be in serious trouble, and so would any government that was sitting with an attorney-general like that. I do not know how a Green government would operate in this place. Every time a Green attorney-general - can you imagine that, Mr Speaker, a Green attorney-general? - disagreed with the opinion of a magistrate, what would he or she do?

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