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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1566 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

There are several alternatives to the battery system of egg production, as I have already mentioned. The total free-range system is not one that we are proposing. The barn system is a medium-intensive single-level system. Again, it is not the one that we are proposing. The third alternative system is the aviary system, which is also intensive farming, but there are simply no cages. This is the system that the animal welfare groups - the RSPCA, the Humane Society International, Animal Liberation and the Federation of Animal Societies - are supporting. Even though it is still an intensive practice, in order to meet the demand for eggs in the ACT it is the system that all these groups would support and, indeed, it is the one that we will be proposing.

It is still a big compromise in terms of the welfare of the animals; but it is at least a big step forward, in that the hens would be out of the dreadful cages and would be able to move around. Parkwood would not have to make huge alterations to their existing buildings. They would simply have to remove the cages and put in open ledges for the hens to sit on, much like birds in an aviary. This new housing arrangement would allow for litter to be used and would be a big step forward from the current very cruel battery cage hen system under which we house a quarter of a million hens in six or seven sheds. As I have said, the aviary system is the one that we will be proposing when we put forward our amendments to the Animal Welfare Act.

I turn to the cost of eggs in the ACT. As I have already said, the price of the eggs produced under the battery cage system is artificially low, just as the price of the free-range eggs that are currently available is artificially high due to the relatively low volume that is sold. The price of free-range eggs is no indication of the price of the mass volume of aviary-produced eggs. Aviary-produced eggs in the ACT would mean a price increase of something like 2c to 3c per egg, or 24c to 36c per dozen. It is quite likely that it would be even less than this because of the high turnover.

An AGB McNair poll conducted in March 1994 showed that over two-thirds of the people surveyed believed that the battery cage system was unacceptable, and 68 per cent of those surveyed said that they would pay more to purchase free-range eggs. A considerable percentage of the population is prepared to pay more for eggs to enable hens to have more freedom of movement. The additional cost for the aviary-produced eggs - and it is a small cost, as I have already said - would pay for wages. It is about maintaining hens in a better condition; it is about supervising them and ensuring that they have some quality of life. The additional cost would actually go into wages. That means jobs - something that this Government is always talking about. What we are proposing is about creating jobs. (Extension of time granted) We are also proposing that with better care and supervision more jobs will be created in this industry, and this will ensure that the welfare of hens in the ACT is at a much better standard.

I certainly look forward to the debate around our legislation when we put it forward in the next few months. I am very sorry that the Government has done so poorly on this issue. I hope that it will lift its game by looking very closely at the alternatives that we are proposing. I hope that they do not put forward the very paltry arguments about economics and jobs. Those issues have been very adequately dealt with in the proposal that we will be putting forward.

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