Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2523 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
Mr Speaker, the ACT Government has put in a great deal of effort to implement legislation which, it must be said, we advised the Assembly was unworkable. In terms of officers' time, including the Productivity Commission, the ACT, the Commonwealth and other State officials, the exercise has probably cost well in excess of $200,000. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the ACT Government to continue to allocate additional resources in pursuing the inclusion of sections 24A(1) and 24B of the Food Act as permanent exemptions to the Mutual Recognition Act.
However, efforts are being made in other areas. The issue of hens and hen welfare was recently debated at some length at a meeting of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) on 6 August 1999. I am pleased to report to members that this issue is gaining greater significance in the national arena and it was agreed that there should be a nationally consistent system of truth in labelling for egg production methods.
Mr Speaker, the ACT will actually lead the rest of Australia in this respect. The Department of Health and Community Care and the Minister for Health, Mr Moore, are taking action to implement requirements for the labelling of egg cartons to provide regulations for prescribed expressions for the labelling of ACT produced eggs. This requirement will commence on 20 September 1999. Officers have also initiated discussions with ACT agencies and relevant industries to prepare for the implementation of the requirements and have developed a strategy to inform consumers, the ACT industry and other stakeholders.
ARMCANZ has further agreed to a review of layer hen housing conditions that will take into account the work that has been completed on this issue by the RSPCA and the industry. This review will provide an appropriate forum to recommend any changes to the nationally accepted Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think it would be far more sensible for interested parties who feel strongly about the battery hens issue to continue to lobby governments to reach agreement on appropriate national standards. In my view, this would be a much more worthwhile approach than piecemeal attempts to amend the Mutual Recognition Act.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Mr Moore for the work he has done in this area. It certainly looks much more positive now that at some stage in the foreseeable future we will see national labelling, at least, of eggs with regard to how they were produced. I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
Debate (on motion by Ms Tucker ) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .