Page 1071 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Hanson: You must have a different view of what we do in our recreational time to feel good, Mr Barr.
MR SPEAKER: I wonder if Mr Barr has ever tried it.
MR BARR: No. It is a quote I have heard used before. Anyway, I digress. The community rightly has an expectation that government will drive positive reform in this industry. Whilst I agree that change will eventually come through changes in price, consumer attitudes and behaviour, I do recognise that there is often a requirement for government to support a transition in order to enable a structural change in an industry. The current federal government has acknowledged this in preparing its policy response to climate change, and previous Australian governments have tackled similar issues in the dairy and automotive industries, to name but a few.
Whilst the egg industry may not yet be in a period of transition, I see no reason why the ACT government cannot show leadership in this area by facilitating positive structural reform. That said, any commitment of public support will need to be weighed carefully against the benefits we expect to achieve; namely, the protection of jobs and improvements in animal welfare and business practice.
So what I propose is that officials from the Economic Development Directorate work directly with representatives from Pace Farm to identify a package of options for consideration by government. This should include what steps and support would be required to move Parkwood farm from a cage to a barn egg facility and the likely time frames in which this could be achieved.
In my view this approach provides the best opportunity for achieving positive outcomes from an animal welfare perspective while, importantly, retaining the employment and economic activity within the territory. So on this basis the government will be supporting the motion put forward by Ms Porter this afternoon. We look forward to reporting back to the Assembly on the progress of this work within my directorate in the May sittings of the Assembly.
Of the amendments that Ms Le Couteur has moved, the government could support some but not the majority. As they have been moved en bloc, I think that will mean our position will be to oppose the lot unless they are put separately. That option, I think, is available. There are some we just cannot support and some that are reasonable and we would be happy to support.
There is an argument over the number of employees, whether it be a figure of 14 from a five-year-old report or the indication from the company itself provided to my directorate that it is closer to 60 jobs. I think I will go with the figure of 60 jobs. I recognise that that involves a combination of full, part-time and casual staff and that some may not be year round, but the bottom line in all of this is that Parkwood farm contributes to our local employment market and to our local economy, and I do not think we should lose sight of that. We can split hairs over the number of staff, but at the end of the day it is not so much about the quantum of jobs but that those jobs are worth protecting. So we will not be supporting that amendment from Ms Le Couteur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video