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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2795 ..

Mr Moore: That is about money.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, a very important subject. It is also important to acknowledge the weaknesses that the alternative schemes of egg production being suggested by the Greens might have in terms of animal welfare. Ms Horodny asserts, confidently, that the barn or aviary method of egg production is better for the hens and a better way for people to see these eggs produced. Let me say to her that barn or aviary production or even free-range production offers other problems for the hens concerned. They are problems which occasion costs to the producer but are also problems which have a serious effect on the hens' lifestyle. Hens are able to peck each other, which they cannot do in the same way within cages. Hens are more able to contract diseases, because they are moving around on floors which are covered in faeces. There are serious problems with the alternatives being suggested, and there is no exploration of costs or animal welfare issues in the provisions put forward by the Greens.

Let me come to the effect of the amendments to be moved by Mr Corbell. Mr Corbell's amendments could best be described as the Claytonising of the provisions in these Bills to ban battery egg production. What they effectively provide is that, although provisions dealing with labelling of eggs will change within about 12 months, the more important provisions - those dealing with battery egg production itself - will not change for a period of six years after Schedule 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act is amended to effectively pick up the capacity for the ACT to proceed with a ban on these eggs.

No doubt, that is a relatively more appealing position to the animal welfare lobby than the Government's position is. (Extension of time granted) No doubt, there will be some people who will give the ALP a second preference after the Greens because they believe strongly on animal welfare grounds that this is the most important issue before the ACT electorate. To that extent, I am not going to die in a ditch about provisions which I think will put us back by a large number of years and probably result in the legislation never becoming effective in the ACT.

But, putting that to one side, there is a serious side to these amendments which I think members ought to be aware of. It is a side which deals with the issue which Mr Berry himself raised yesterday in his major policy statement about where the Australian Labor Party was heading. That is a question of uncertainty in the environment of jobs. If I were the managing director or the board of directors of Parkwood Eggs and I faced legislation of this kind which raises the question of a future ACT government negotiating the inclusion of section 24A of the Food Act in Schedule 2 of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act, I would consider my position to be uncertain. I would accept that there was going to be some question about where I would be six years after the legislation came into effect. That uncertainty, logically, would lead to people like that wondering what their future is in the ACT, particularly people who are in a business which is facing a major investment in the next few years, which could be either investment in existing plant and equipment to upgrade it and adapt it or investment in new plant and equipment on another site.

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