Page 4090 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
absurd situation where a bill is going to be passed with not one of the substantive clauses in the bill actually being enacted. We are going to have a situation where this Assembly says that it supports this bill, but it does not support any of the clauses in the bill.
The Greens bill, as put forward by Ms Le Couteur, is a bill for an act to amend legislation about keeping of hens in cage systems and the display of cage eggs, and not one of the clauses, not one of the substantive clauses, will become law. It is a ridiculous proposition. It is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
It is not a reflection on the original bill. We have our differences. The situation will arise as a result of the government supporting in principle a bill which they do not actually support. They are not going to support any of the individual clauses. They will either oppose the clauses or they will amend them. Yet they are claiming that they support the bill. The Greens will be getting something they absolutely do not want. We will have a piece of legislation that could have been put forward by the government, because it is now the government’s bill.
Given the positions that have been put forward by the three parties in this place, we can only assume that this bill will pass without any of the clauses banning cage egg production going through, it will pass without any of the clauses requiring ministerial action going through and it will go through without any of the original drafted provisions in relation to display. It is now the government’s bill. We will end up with an absurd situation.
A far more sensible thing would have been to come back with labelling laws because that is what this is now about. This is what the government could have done. You would expect—
Mr Stanhope: No, you could have done that.
MR SESELJA: Well, we are not advocating it. I am not advocating it. You are advocating it now, and you are bringing it on two hours before we vote on it. This is the respect for process that they have. They are going to bring in legislation, which is now the government’s legislation. Let us be clear on that. This is the government’s legislation. We will have an absurd situation where not one of the clauses in the original bill will pass today. What will pass is a number of provisions which would impose obligations on supermarkets and those who sell eggs at a retail level without, presumably, any reasonable consultation with them or with this place to actually determine whether these words are right.
We do need to talk briefly about the principle of this type of legislation—display legislation which deals with warnings. We will be setting an interesting precedent when we have warnings or information about the production of certain eggs. What other animal products will we look to regulate in that same way? I do not think there is anyone here who would claim that there are not potential animal welfare issues with the production of all manner of animal products. Are we going to have retailers giving warnings in the pork section, in the veal section or when we sell lamb?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .