Page 111 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Gentleman): Mr Rattenbury, just before you go to that, there is a requirement to make a statement under standing order 182A, which relates to the moving of the amendments.
MR RATTENBURY: Yes, I seek leave to move the amendments together. I understand that I do not need to move under standing order 182A. They have already been to the scrutiny committee.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move amendments Nos 1 to 7 circulated in my name together and I table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments [see schedule 1 at page 124].
Experience in international jurisdictions that have prohibited battery cages for commercial egg production has shown that some egg producers have started to introduce enriched or furnished cages in an attempt to bypass the prohibition on battery cages. Enriched cages are larger than traditional battery cages and are enriched by the introduction of a perch, some litter and a nesting box. Although enriched cages arguably may have some benefits over traditional battery cages, their use for egg production still has significant welfare concerns.
The government amendments that I am introducing today extend the prohibition in proposed new section 9A of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 from keeping a laying fowl for commercial egg production in a battery cage to keeping a laying fowl for commercial egg production in anything but appropriate accommodation. The definition of “appropriate accommodation” precludes keeping a laying fowl for commercial egg production in any form of cage which includes an enriched or furnished cage. The term “appropriate accommodation” in this bill may only be either barn or free-range egg production as defined in the Eggs (Labelling and Sale) Act 2001.
As noted in the earlier debate, there has been some commentary in the media that there is no need for this bill, that the ACT has no piggeries and that the ACT’s only egg producer no longer uses cages. But I do disagree with this point of view. I think that it is vital—indeed, imperative—that this Assembly sends a strong message that these forms of factory farming are wrong. These forms of factory farming do not have the support of most of Canberra’s community and these forms of factory farming will no longer be tolerated in the ACT.
The past decade has seen a growth in the sales of free-range eggs as more and more consumers have demanded a stronger commitment to animal welfare. According to the Australian Egg Corporation—
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Coe!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video