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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2791 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Government has the very gravest concerns about these provisions. I am aware that amendments have been proposed by Mr Corbell. I will comment on those in more detail when we reach the detail stage of this Bill. I think, in fairness, I should confine my remarks now to the in-principle stage of this Bill as it is now before the house. If the Assembly passes the amendments to these two Acts, the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 will provide a defence to any prosecution under that legislation if the eggs were produced and marketed under the laws of another State or Territory. The ACT legislation would, therefore, prevent battery production in the ACT while the sale of battery eggs from other States continued. As the Mutual Recognition Act is a Commonwealth Act, it is not possible for the ACT Legislative Assembly to include provisions in later legislation to exclude the operation of that Act.

If the Assembly passes these amendments to the two Acts in the form they are now before us and Parkwood Eggs decides to maintain its establishment in the ACT - a problematical question - and convert to an aviary system, then there would be, of course, a significant rise in the cost of eggs produced in the ACT. This would result in Parkwood pricing itself out of the consumer market within the ACT. I am advised that the difference in price between eggs produced in a battery cage and eggs produced in a barn or aviary is anything between $1 and $1.44 per dozen on the present production costs. That is a significant increase in costs. It raises the very real question of whether Parkwood, as the major producer in the Territory, would be prepared to accept that additional cost or would move its operations outside the ACT.

I have argued the point about the Mutual Recognition Act with my colleagues Ms Horodny and Ms Tucker before, and in discussions they have always taken the view that the Mutual Recognition Act does not constitute a problem for the passage of this legislation. I suspect that they are going to support the amendments put forward by Mr Corbell today. I take that as acceptance that, in fact, the Mutual Recognition Act does constitute a barrier to the effective operation of this legislation. On the face of the legislation as it stands before us, it is just as well that the Mutual Recognition Act does operate to thwart the effect of this legislation. I have received advice this morning from Dr Robyn Sheen, who is responsible for competition policy issues within the ACT Government, that in her view it is highly likely that the operation of these provisions would put at risk competition policy payments to the ACT.

Ms Tucker: There is a good case for the ACCC to look at public interest, then, is there not?

MR HUMPHRIES: It may be the case that the Greens do not much care about the loss of that money. The ACT Government certainly cares about the loss of that money.

Mr Berry: How much?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not possible to say. The ACT will receive some tens of millions of dollars in competition policy payments over the next five years. That is the agreement worked out between States and Territories which will result in a significant amount of money coming back to the ACT. We are, however, to receive that money only on the basis that we produce a program to progressively reduce the barriers to effective

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