Page 4085 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government’s position is that there should be signs not only for cage eggs but also for barn eggs and for free-range eggs, and the signs should briefly describe how the birds are kept. The different types of eggs should be displayed under the appropriate sign.
Accordingly, the government does support this bill in principle, but I have foreshadowed that we will propose a number of amendments at the detail stage of the debate. As I have just foreshadowed, there are a number of aspects of the bill which the government will not support. Having said that, this is an issue on which the government has sought to show leadership, and we have. We have shown that leadership in relation to the decision taken by this government not to purchase cage-produced eggs. That was a sign of significant leadership by the government; the first and to date, I believe, the only government in Australia that has taken that step. We have sent a signal in relation to this government’s stand on or concern around the need to continue to address animal welfare concerns in relation to the poultry industry.
I had also advocated on this issue, led discussions and moved motions at the primary industry ministerial council, as I have previously foreshadowed. I have been the only minister to do so. That has been without success, but I have generated debate and managed to achieve some support from some ministers, admittedly in the smaller jurisdictions and in jurisdictions where there is not a significant egg industry.
I respect and acknowledge the leadership of Ms Le Couteur and the Greens in relation to this particular debate. We do not see eye to eye on the methodology but, at the end of the day, as I have said previously, I think we have essentially the same aims but have developed a different view on how to best achieve an outcome that suits our particular community that will achieve genuine change and will impact on the welfare of hens.
We are a small jurisdiction, and this is a major sector of our agricultural industry. Just under half of our entire agricultural input is through one egg-producing facility. It is a significant income generator for the territory at over $3 million. It does employ 56 people, most of whom are female blue-collar workers for whom there is not a significant employment base within this territory. I am happy to continue to work with the Greens and with other members of this Assembly on this difficult and complex issue. It is a complex issue; it is a challenging issue—that is, the contest between the capacity to show leadership and to drive change through leadership as against the pragmatic considerations of banning eggs in an island within New South Wales. At the end of the day, that would not affect the health standards or outcomes for a single hen in Australia—not one.
It is interesting, and I have commented on this today, that in most surveys the vast majority of Australians, and a very significant majority of Canberrans, indicate that they do not support the cage system production of eggs, yet 76 per cent of us continue to buy them. There is a disconnect between views expressed, and it is in this regard that the proposals that Ms Le Couteur makes, most particularly in relation to labelling, are most important. Change will be driven by price and by consumer attitude and behaviour. When people stop buying cage-produced eggs, egg producers will stop producing as many as they currently do. That is the particular significance and strength of the proposals which Ms Le Couteur has introduced in relation to labelling,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .