All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2020-06-16#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-06-19 12:46:22
|
Title
Documents — Live Animal Exports- Motions - Live Animal Exports - Do not appeal Federal Court decision
Description
<p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate—</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-06-16.121.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Malcolm Roberts](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/malcolm_roberts) (One Nation), which means it was successful. Motions like these don't have any legal force but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that the 2011 Gillard Government decision to suspend live exports:*
- >
- >> *(i) gravely affected the live export industry, and*
- >>
- >> *(ii) was declared invalid by the Federal Court earlier in June; and*
- >
- > *(b) calls on the Federal Government to rule out appealing the Federal Court’s decision.*
<p class="italic">(a) notes that the 2011 Gillard Government decision to suspend live exports:</p><p class="italic">  (i) gravely affected the live export industry, and</p><p class="italic">  (ii) was declared invalid by the Federal Court earlier in June; and</p><p class="italic">(b) calls on the Federal Government to rule out appealing the Federal Court’s decision.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>Our country's live exporters have no greater friend than this Liberal-National government. The government sympathises with the sentiment behind this motion. Labor's decision to ban the live export trade caused enormous and unwarranted damage to the industry and individuals. The industry needs and deserves stability and predictability. The Federal Court's decision in the Brett Cattle Company case was handed down on Tuesday 2 June 2020. No decision on the future of the litigation will be made until sometime after the scheduled court hearing to make final orders in the matter, including orders for damages. That hearing is set down for 29 June 2020. Given the risk that this decision could actually establish a precedent that could be weaponised against the live export industry, the responsible course of action is for the government to seek further advice before making determinations with respect to the future of this litigation.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>Let's be clear. The live export industry is based on animal cruelty, on animal misery, on blood soaked supply chains, but this government do not give a damn. They have just given an exemption for 50,000 sheep to be sent off to the extreme heat of the northern summer where they will face immense heat stress and they will be at risk of death. You make a mockery of your own rules. You should be ashamed. You don't care about animal welfare. The so-called independence of the department of agriculture is a farce. It's a joke. Ban live export. Shut it down!</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement to outline Labor's voting intention.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Labor will not be supporting the motion. The shadow minister for agriculture has made it clear that Labor acknowledges and respects the court's decision. Further, the matter is still subject to legal proceedings and the government must always act in the national interest.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Can I take this opportunity to remind those seeking leave that it is generally a way to explain a position rather than debate a motion. The question is that motion No. 668 be agreed to.</p>
|