Wednesday, 14 August 2024

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into Pig Welfare in Victoria

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:23): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the report on the pig welfare inquiry in Victoria, which was tabled in the Legislative Council in June 2024 by the chair of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee Georgie Purcell. I wish to make comment on the minority report.

As is normal practice in committee proceedings, members can file minority reports. However, members of the committee who might have served on that inquiry do not get to see the contents of any minority report before it is tabled. It should be said that such a report can be characterised as nothing more than a gathering of quotes from industry and bizarre allegations about other members on the committee. This is very disappointing to see. So it came as a complete surprise to me as a member of the committee to read the minority report authored by members of the Liberals and Nationals. In short, the minority report casts aspersions and makes spurious allegations involving a number of members on the committee, including me as a Labor member.

The report is a fiction and a fantasy. Amongst the bizarre allegations, in short, the authors of the minority report allege that the chair of the inquiry undermined parliamentary process and did so with the support of Labor members. They also allege that Labor members should have held the chair to account and that no effort was made to address the chair’s public position relating to her concerns about pig welfare in the industry.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, I am listening carefully, and I can see how this contribution relates to a report, but it does appear to be more in the line of a personal explanation, with the member wanting to excuse and explain things that have occurred.

Michael Galea: On the point of order, Acting President, that clearly is not a personal explanation. Ms Terpstra is plainly referring directly to the contents of a committee report.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I will make a ruling on the point of order. There is no point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: The comments and findings are misguided, bizarre and completely without foundation. Firstly, there was no evidence presented to the inquiry about any alleged undermining of parliamentary privilege. In fact the terms of reference of the inquiry did not include any references to this and certainly members on the committee did not raise any matters in a substantial way throughout the hearing, other than generally complaining when matters did not go their way. The minority report also erroneously concludes that Labor members had some kind of obligation to hold the chair to account or address the chair’s public position on pig welfare. I note that no such obligation exists. In fact if any such obligations existed, the same could be said for those members who authored the minority report.

Committee hearings and reports are a function of what is put before them and based on the terms of reference. If members want to make accusations about others, this should be done via a substantive motion in the house. However, given the gaps in our standing orders, the authors of this report sought to exploit this and deny any opportunities for members to respond. The lack of professionalism in this minority report is breathtaking. The report can and should be rightly characterised as nothing more than a bizarre personal attack on members who were denied procedural fairness to respond. The allegations are unsupported by any evidence. Consequently, the minority report is nothing more than an unintelligible, emotionally unhinged rant. The report epitomises everything a minority report should not be. It undermines committee processes, especially when it resorts to personally attacking other members of the committee, which does nothing for cohesiveness and engendering collaboration and collegiality on committees. Of course members will disagree on issues, evidence and outcomes. That is normal. But filing a report that contains nothing more than Olympic-level whingeing because the authors of the report did not get their way can only be seen as an embarrassment and a poor reflection on the members who authored it.

In conclusion, I wish to place on record that there is no substance to any allegations contained in that report. I was denied the opportunity to respond. The allegations in that report are grossly unfair, and members should be made to comply with general standing orders in the house and make any accusations by substantive motion.