Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1565 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

the barn system, allow the birds freedom of movement. However, it is a single-level system, overcrowding is still a problem and de-beaking often still occurs. Another system is the aviary or deep litter system. Multilevel perches allow the hens to fly up to roosting sites and get away from the other hens if they desire to do so. This system allows reasonable expression of natural behaviours, with the establishment of social groups, and generally there is no fighting and no need to de-beak.

States and Territories are expected to follow the code of accepted farming practice for the welfare of domestic fowl. This code, however, can be seen as only the bare minimum standard for battery hens and, in fact, is full of anomalies. It says that you must allow freedom of flight, and then a few pages into the code it offers cage sizes which give each hen only the space of an A4 page. These codes are voluntary. They cannot be enforced unless they are incorporated into legislation. As the codes stand, they support not the welfare of the battery hen but rather manufacturing economic efficiency. I believe that it is an absolute disgrace that our modern society allows this very poor and disgusting treatment of our fellow creatures who, at the end of the day, are already losing their lives for the dinner plates of humans; yet we say that we cannot even allow them to have a decent life with very basic essentials such as food and water that they can actually access. Many of the 600 birds that die every week at the Parkwood establishment are dehydrated and starved because they do not have access to the food and water which is their basic right. Why can we not let them be still intensively farmed but - this is the proposal that we will be putting up in our legislation later in the year - in an aviary system which gives them the freedom to move and allows them to express some of their very basic behavioural needs?

Mr Humphries, when he was tabling his statement last year, said that some sections of the community had argued that battery hen farming in the ACT should be stopped. He went on to say that this suggestion was illogical because it would retrench 60 workers. That is wrong. He said that it would close down a major industry. That is absolutely wrong. He said that it would require the ACT to import eggs from elsewhere. Again, that is wrong. He said that it would not improve the conditions of a single bird. That is again very wrong. Mr Humphries's rationale is highly illogical. If we in the ACT allowed only eggs produced from humane sources to be sold here, then Parkwood would actually need to take on - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! The level of conversation in the chamber is too loud.

MS HORODNY: Indeed it is. Parkwood would need to take on many more workers to meet the additional requirement of a more labour-intensive system. This would provide care for the hens and ensure that adequate hygiene standards were maintained. The system that we are proposing - Mr Humphries and Mr De Domenico, I hope, are listening - would actually mean more jobs. It would be better for our economy; it would be better for jobs in the ACT; and, of course, it would be better for hens in the ACT.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .