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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2800 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Finally, Labor's amendments deal with the Food Act. We are proposing to amend the Greens' proposals for the Food Act to require the development of a code of practice to allow accurate definition of battery, aviary, barn and free-range egg labels. Currently the Greens' amendments do not specify what these terms mean, and a more accurate process needs to be established to define each of them. The effect of Labor's amendments is to require the development of regulations to cover prescribed definitions - that is, those definitions in regard to labelling of battery, aviary, barn and free-range eggs - to describe the conditions under which the hens that produce the eggs are kept. They give the Government one year within which to develop these regulations. We believe it is far more appropriate to allow a sensible period of time. The Greens proposed three months. We believe that was unreasonable. We believe that if this Bill is passed the Government should be given a sensible period of time to develop the labelling provisions that will be required if this Bill is passed.

The Labor Party takes very seriously indeed the issue of jobs for people working at Parkwood. We are meeting and matching and balancing that very important concern with the equally significant level of support for the removal of the battery cage system which has come from many residents of Canberra. It is not an easy issue to address. We believe that the Greens' proposals in their original form were simply an approach of legislating now and letting everyone else deal with the problems later. Our amendments seek to change that situation by making sure that there is time. They seek to change it by recognising that there are constraints in the national context that we have to work within, and they say that once an exemption is gained there should be a significant period of time for Parkwood to undertake a transition to alternative methods of egg production.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Labor Party, in government, would of course be committed to negotiating at a ministerial council level to gain an exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act for the ACT's ban on battery cage production. That is not a commitment that the present Government has made. I would be interested to see what the Government's response is on that issue, if the Assembly does decide to enact these Bills. What commitment will you have to enacting the will of the Assembly? Labor is committed to encouraging alternative forms of egg production in the ACT and we are also committed to ensuring that a sensible process of industry transition is properly managed. Labor believes that there is a substantial opportunity for increases in jobs resulting from a move to alternative forms of production. The problem lies in community perceptions about the system of egg production and the constraints it imposes on the natural behaviour of the animal.

The Minister is suggesting that the Labor Party has not spoken to the owners of Parkwood. I can assure the Minister that the Labor Party has on several occasions. I cannot speak for Parkwood in this debate and I do not intend to do so, but from the discussions that we have had with Parkwood we believe that overall they are comfortable with the Labor Party's approach.

Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether Mr Corbell would like to reconsider a misleading statement to the Assembly.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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