Page 4095 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
weighed against the moral imperative of ending a cruel practice and setting the lead for Australia. That is much more admirable than defending an outmoded, unwanted business. In any case, the economic benefit of Pace has been inflated as another excuse for not supporting the bill.
With 14 employees, Parkwood would not pay any payroll tax to the territory. A business only has to pay payroll tax when it pays wages of more than $125,000 in a month. Pace pays only a token amount of $486 to the territory per year for its lease on the property. As a cage-only facility, Pace cannot even supply government agencies who are now all committed to buying non-cage eggs only. So we have to import those eggs from elsewhere.
There have also been arguments made that consumers will drive change to the egg industry. This is also flawed. Consumers often do not know what goes on behind the locked doors of factory cage farms. It is a well-known failure of the market that consumers do not have all the information or know that other factors interfere with the pure operation of the market.
There are also many consumers who believe that the government will not permit the sale of products that are cruelly produced. Consumers often think if these eggs are produced through cruel means the government will not sanction their sale. It is the job of the Assembly, as legislators, to prohibit animal cruelty.
This is an issue about basic human decency and about how we, as a society, treat all living creatures. It is time we took some simple action to right a wrong that has been overlooked for too long. It would have been quite simple for the territory to be a leader and instigate change in Australia, and it is shameful that this will not happen.
I would also like to dispute Mr Stanhope’s comments in regard to Western Europe. As Western European countries have banned caged hens, the overall welfare of hens is by far much better. If we continually use the reasoning that we should not do anything because others are doing something wrong, then we would never have any progress and very little policy in program areas.
As to Mrs Dunne’s statements about the 1950s and 1960s, there are many things in the 1950s and 1960s that were seen as being good practice. I believe smoking was one of them and the use of DDT. I would hope that we do not see that as a reason too often by the Liberal Party in the future.
As to the claims about having no time to look at this and there being no consultation, there was an exposure draft out for two months. It would be nice to see them make a decision on something. They say we have not consulted with anyone. Supabarn and IGA have both been consulted on this and they both support the legislation. And IGA actually provided a quote to the Greens to include in a media release. Stating that this is a poor way of doing legislation, I guess, means we can expect to see exposure drafts six months in advance from the Liberal Party, given they do not support this way of doing legislation, which I believe is how they do their legislation themselves.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.50), in reply: I rise to finish the debate on the in-principle stage. I must say I had a moment of real hope and joy at the beginning of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .