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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2792 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

competition available both internally in the ACT and across our borders. It is quite clear that provisions that prevented the sale in the ACT of products which are legally available across the border would be an anti-competitive arrangement and would threaten those competition payments.

We have not yet encountered the situation where the National Competition Council has ruled that a particular provision offends and therefore some penalty should be imposed on a particular jurisdiction, so I do not know what would happen in terms of competition payments. Perhaps a percentage of the payments would be withheld to account for the aberration; perhaps it would all be withheld - I just do not know. I do not think anybody else can say with certainty what would happen, but I do know that we play with fire in entertaining provisions of that kind.

It is clear that to take this step, if it were effective, from 1 July 1999 would pose a real question about the profitability of an operator like Parkwood continuing within the ACT. Their costs would rise significantly. If they were forced to sell or to produce only barn or free-range eggs in the ACT, I am told that they would have to almost double the amount of physical space they provide on their farm to produce eggs. They have seven sheds in which battery eggs are produced at the moment. They would need to increase that number to at least 10 in order to be able to provide the large amount of space required per hen within each barn.

That is not to mention the additional costs which flow from injury to hens which are able to move around and peck each other and pick up diseases and so on from the floor and the greater cost of producing eggs by this means. Those are extra costs which would flow through to the egg consumer of the ACT. If, however, we end up with Parkwood deciding that those costs are too great and deciding that they are better off across the border, they will not have to worry about this form of regulation of their industry. Certainly, there are no indications that the Labor Government in New South Wales has any intention of moving ahead of the national pack in respect of battery farming regulation. It is likely that Parkwood would see that as a safer way of being able to continue long-term production.

I have been told that Parkwood Eggs will need to spend a large amount of money in the next few years on upgrading and updating their facilities at Parkwood. That is an opportunity, in Ms Horodny's eyes no doubt, to convert to something else, "something better". It is also a juncture where an enterprise like Parkwood would make a fundamental decision about whether they should stay in the ACT or move outside. If they were to move, the consequences for the ACT would be very grave indeed. I will come back in a moment to talk about both jobs and the loss of revenue to the Territory through loss of payroll tax and other taxes that the ACT benefits from on receipts from enterprises operating within the borders of the ACT.

I would argue that this legislation is also a serious affront to agreements already entered into on a national level by this and previous governments on the question of food standards. In 1991 an agreement was signed between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories in relation to the adoption of uniform food standards. I think it was signed

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