Page 1077 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I actually do not have any big problem with this, except it is not really where we should be going. We do not really want an agreed national approach to cage egg production; we want a humane approach to egg production. It does not really serve anything if we all agree to something which is cruel and inhumane. And that would seem to be where this amendment from Mrs Dunne is going. So we are not very happy with that.
The last one calls upon the Speaker to write to relevant advocacy groups. How would the Speaker determine who the relevant advocacy groups were? Canberra Connect does put out a book—it is about that thick—of basically all the community groups in the ACT. Are you suggesting that he write to every group in the ACT? This is simply nonsensical. It is simply political. What groups would you think he would write to? And what do you think he would actually say? It is simply ridiculous. The Greens do not support this amendment. But as I said, we also do not support the alleged actions at Parkwood a week or so ago.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.43): I am really not sure what Ms Le Couteur’s position is, having listened to that latest defence now. To not be condemning illegal activity is sub judice apparently, as if stating a principle in the Assembly that we condemn the deliberate destruction of property, whether it be at Pace Farm, the CSIRO or anywhere else, would somehow prejudice a case. That is, of course, ridiculous. If that were the case, of course, Ms Le Couteur’s comments at the end of her statement would be just as likely to prejudice the case. By that standard, you have already trespassed on sub judice.
But I think something else is at play here. We see a new excuse every day. With the Greens, when it came to this issue, it was: “We’re not aware of the details. We can’t condemn something we don’t know about. We just don’t know.” They then read the paper and condemned it, but not all of it. They condemned part of it. I understand that they condemned the bit with battery acid. That was the bit that they condemned. Other destruction of property, break and enter, that sort of thing apparently is not worth condemning, according to Ms Le Couteur and Mr Rattenbury. So we see this go round and round.
They did do better, though, on this one than they did on CSIRO. I think there was the opportunity on radio again this morning for Mr Rattenbury to condemn Greenpeace’s actions now that they have pleaded guilty to this kind of behaviour, to these kinds of criminal acts, to this kind of intimidatory behaviour towards scientists. There were a number of things that went on at CSIRO that I think were outrageous. There was the destruction of property, the deliberate and wanton destruction of property.
There was another part of that, and it was an attack on scientists. It was saying to scientists, “There are certain things you can’t look at.” The Greens, through Greenpeace and other activist arms, have said that when it comes to GM crops, scientists cannot actually look at that. They cannot try to figure out whether it is a good thing, whether or not it can, in fact, have some potential to feed people—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video