Page 4083 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In addition, the requirement to advocate for a total ban on cage production is narrow and rigid in its scope, and it does fail to recognise some of the complexities of this issue. For example, there may be ways to make cage production more acceptable by the use of larger, furnished cages. The bill also fails to take into account possible changes to the fourth edition of the model code. We might have a situation where the minister is required to advocate improvements to the fourth edition of the model code after a new fifth edition of the code was adopted.
With respect, these requirements of the bill add nothing to the powers of the Assembly to critique the government’s action on this matter. As on any other matter, a member of this Assembly can raise the matter in the Assembly through question time or debates, through the media or through direct informal lobbying of a minister. A member would be able to do all of that with or without this aspect of the bill.
If caged hens were banned in the ACT and our sole commercial producer left the territory, the government’s ability to influence other jurisdictions at the national level could also be significantly weakened. Why would other jurisdictions listen to the ACT if we do not have a poultry industry here at all? The government’s position is that we should encourage Pace Farm to continue to improve conditions at their facility and, importantly, signpost the different production methods in shops so that the public is better informed about the eggs it buys. Market forces are important to drive the industry to improve conditions for poultry.
It is interesting in this regard to reflect on some of the international experience, which I am sure will be quoted in this debate. It is interesting to reflect on the ban of cage egg production in Sweden over recent years. This ban resulted in a huge influx of cage eggs being imported to Sweden from Poland where, I am advised, minimum cage sizes are set at 280 square centimetres per bird compared with the Australian standard of 550 square centimetres per bird. It is also interesting to reflect on some of the implications and knock-on effects of the banning that has occurred in some of the western European nations, which in the main now purchase their eggs from eastern European nations where standards are significantly less than they were in the countries in which cage production has now been banned. In other words, the welfare of hens producing eggs for the majority of Europe is worse than it was before those systems were banned in places such as Sweden.
The ACT government has adopted a progressive approach to encouraging the use of non-cage eggs. In fact, we are leading by example by requiring all government agencies to source shell eggs from alternative non-cage sources. The proposed ban would shift the problem of cage hens interstate and do nothing to improve the conditions for cage-kept hens. It also weakens our ability to lobby and advocate. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting clauses which amend the Animal Welfare Act.
The bill also seeks to amend the Eggs (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001. While raising public awareness about caged hens is laudable, the bill’s approach, we believe, is not the best. First, the proposed dimensions of the sign are excessive and will result in shopkeepers needing to devote an unnecessary level of shelf space to the issue. In
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .