Page 4102 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We all love the old warm inner glow; but you have to be just a tad pragmatic around some of the implications of major decisions such as this. This is a major decision in relation to a significant industry and you cannot just scorn and deride and dismiss the considerations which the government, and indeed the opposition, have taken into account in relation to the positions we have arrived at in relation to our opposition to an outright ban on cage system production in this territory—a decision that would see economic growth reduced by over $3 million, that would see 56 people out of work and that would see those hens transported across the border into a cage system that would not be as large as the cage system that currently applies at Parkwood.
Those are the sorts of issues that we have taken into consideration, and I would have expected some slightly more generous acceptance of the difficulty of this issue for all of us and the fact that each of us has arrived at our position on the basis of deep thought and serious consideration of all of the issues.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.18): We do support our clause and we do not support the opposing of it. In terms of what the Chief Minister has said about the economic impact, if this was to be passed—I agree it does not look like it will be—then Pace clearly will make a commercial decision. Obviously I do not know what that decision will be, but what I can say—I will repeat it—is that if the Assembly made the decision to ban cage eggs there would be a good commercial case for Pace to stay in the ACT at the very low rent it currently has. That is particularly given the fact that we know that their current production facilities do not meet the code of conduct. We understand they are going to have to spend substantial amounts of money to keep their current facilities going. So change is inevitable for Pace. If this bill is passed, that will be one sort of change. We think it is very likely that the change would be to free-range eggs in the ACT, particularly given the ACT government’s generous offer of a $1 million conversion.
I am not claiming that I know what Pace will do. That clearly is Pace’s commercial decision. They will take this into account, and there would be many other things that Pace would take into account. As we all should remember, Pace are a very large egg producer, and the ACT production is only part of their facilities. They do, in fact, produce free-range and barn eggs in other facilities. They certainly are not averse to doing it, and we think it is likely that, were they encouraged—a bit of carrot, a bit of stick—it is likely that this is what they would do.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.20): Mr Speaker, the opposition is opposing this clause for the same reasons which were very cogently outlined by the Chief Minister. I almost sought leave under standing order 47 to make a statement before, but I will make it here: I am quite aware that the Greens have consulted moderately widely on this. They have had an exposure draft out on this, and I congratulate them for their enthusiasm for and commitment to this cause. But one of the people or organisations that they did not consult with was Pace Farm. Ms Le Couteur said that she does not know what Pace are going to do. Well, I know what I was told by Pace when I asked them, and it was very much the same as the Chief Minister just outlined here.
When I deal with a constituent of any sort, I can go on what they tell us. I will not spend my time sitting around saying, “Well, if X happens, maybe they will go towards
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .