Page 4091 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
How far does it go? Does it extend to egg product? It does not here, but should it? These are the questions, and this is the precedent that has not been considered. This is what happens when you do deal with legislation in such an absurd way. We have got a piece of legislation that was put to the Assembly and considered by the Assembly, and let us be clear that that piece of legislation will be rejected by the Assembly today.
No matter how it is spun in terms of supporting it in principle, the government is not supporting it in principle. Every clause will be rejected. Every substantive clause will be rejected. We will get the absurd situation where the government, with no notice, essentially brings forward its own legislation, which presumably will be passed today. It is very poor process. It is a very ordinary way of doing things. It has no regard to the impact of the legislation.
If you were serious about this, you would consult on these amendments—which comprise essentially a new piece of legislation—to determine what impact they may or may not have and whether or not we can actually get this right. It has not been done properly. It has been done very poorly. We will end up with a situation where the government will be voting for a bill that they do not support in any way, shape or form. They will be voting for a bill while at the same time rejecting every single substantive individual clause. We will end up with an absurd situation.
We will be voting against the bill for the reasons outlined by Mrs Dunne. I put it to the Assembly that this is a poor way of doing legislation. There are always unintended consequences when you rush through legislative change without it being tested, and that is the situation we will have here.
Ms Bresnan: Okay.
MR SESELJA: Well, that is the situation because there has been no consultation on Mr Stanhope’s amendments. They have not been discussed and tested and considered properly. What we have is a bill that has been considered over a period of time, but every clause will be rejected today. What will go through will not have been considered, will not have been tested and we will get a situation where we may well end up with legislation that does not work well in practice. In fact, we may well be back here soon amending this legislation.
It is a poor way of driving through legislation. It is actually quite dishonest to vote for something in principle that you actually do not support in any way, shape or form. That is the situation we have here. That will be the inevitable outcome of the vote as we have it. We renew our objection to this way of doing things and we will not be supporting this bill in principle.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.38): Firstly, I thank Mr Stanhope for acknowledging that the Greens have shown leadership on this issue, which is very nice to hear. However, I guess he still does not allay the fact that this approach taken by the government and obviously by the Liberal Party is extremely disappointing. It is a failure for the community and for animal welfare.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .