Page 2319 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
number that will get smaller in the next few years as the management plan is implemented.
Culling of kangaroos in the ACT comes from a place of biodiversity management. We must be very clear about that. It is a slippery slope sometimes when we build commercial operations around the edges of non-commercial practices where the proverbial commercial tail then starts to wag the dog. We have seen that industries can quickly build a business model around a public policy objective and then cry foul when the public policy objective is no longer required and their business interests are affected. It is this situation that the Greens are keen not to see established.
Any utilisation of kangaroo carcasses generated through a cull that is undertaken for land management reasons must be undertaken with a clear understanding that utilisation of carcasses only comes after biodiversity outcomes are fulfilled. Any contract that the ACT government may enter into with a commercial operator must have flexibility built into it that reflects these priorities. Obviously, the ACT cannot support a commercial kangaroo meat industry and should not, and we have proposed an amendment that makes this clear. We do not have the populations to establish such a thing, and the commercial imperatives mean that it would not be viable. Our culls are annual and seasonal, not ongoing. Therefore, any supply is extremely limited.
Indeed, this debate is really about utilisation of a resource that appears to be going to waste, not commercial disposal at all. It is for this reason that I have proposed the amendments that change the language originally put forward by Mrs Dunne. The term “commercial disposal” gets us nowhere. We can commercially burn or even commercially bury, but the point I think she is trying to make is that the carcasses could be utilised. I am less concerned about whether this is even an arrangement that delivers much commercial benefit. Should the ACT be selling the carcasses or just ensuring that they are not wasted? I think it is the latter. If we were to give them away, would that offend Mrs Dunne? I suspect not.
In summary, the Greens support an integrated approach to the management of kangaroos in the territory. This must occur against a backdrop that acknowledges all biodiversity values but also acknowledges the broad range of threats that our grasslands and woodlands face. We do recognise the frustration that carcasses appear to go to waste when culls are undertaken, and we offer cautious support for the government to investigate how this may be resolved for future culls. We think the notion of pursuing commercial disposal is fraught with problems and that the ACT should absolutely not move towards the development of a commercial kangaroo meat industry.
Before I sit down and Mr Smyth starts, I would move the amendment circulated in my name which amends Mr Stanhope’s proposed amendment:
Omit paragraphs (3)(a) to (3)(c), substitute:
“(3) (a) ensure accurate information about the rationale and conduct of all culls is made available to the community prior to the annual commencement of culling;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video