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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3078 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I would like to take the unusual step, Mr Speaker, of thanking specific public servants and staff here for what they have done. Rather than naming them, because I know that often embarrasses members of my staff and the department, I would like to extend my very warm thankyou to the people who have put so much effort into bringing this legislation to this point because I think it is extraordinarily important.

Mr Speaker, there is the issue raised by Mr Wood and, in detail, by Mr Corbell about the national standards for egg labelling. Egg labelling is something we have taken seriously. The matter was raised at senior officials level. Senior officials made it very clear that they did not approve of the ACT egg labelling coming into our Food Act. I raised it personally with ministers, and they also made it very clear they thought it was an inappropriate way to deal with animal welfare issues.

I am very pleased that Mr Corbell has come up with an appropriate way, a lateral solution, to get the outcome that we are talking about. I do not think we have seen a copy of his bill yet, but conceptually, raising the issues he has and putting them in a free-standing piece of legislation is something that the government would find acceptable, because what we are seeking to do is to make sure that we have a continuation of a system retaining the status quo for the labelling of eggs. Not only is it not consistent with our own national agreements, but it is also entirely inappropriate that it be part of the food legislation. It is about an animal welfare issue, not about the quality or possible contamination or safety of food.

I was pleased when Mr Corbell came and spoke to me and said that he had this lateral solution. Like so many lateral solutions, it is relatively simple and straightforward and an easy way through. I would like to congratulate him and indicate in-principle support from the government for his concept. I look forward to seeing his bill tabled tomorrow and will see how we go.

There was something else that was happening that is also very important. I wrote to members about this. Agriculture ministers, with great encouragement from my colleague Mr Smyth, have been looking for a national standard for egg labelling, and they agreed earlier this year that they would go to a national standard for egg labelling. Not only have they got a national standard for egg labelling; it is supported by the producers. There is cooperation. It is the sort of approach that Ms Tucker and the Greens say we should use on many other issues. We should, where possible, get people to agree. We should listen to them, come to compromises, and find out what is the most effective way to deal with an issue.

The national standards for egg labelling cover the definition of the egg production system; the description of the method of production, caged, barn laid or free range; the placement, print style, font size on labels; and the egg product type, which I think is free, vegetarian or organic eggs. So, Mr Speaker, granted, under the way we had dealt with this food legislation, there was going to be a period in which there was no egg labelling, but, more importantly, there was going to be a national scheme. Mr Corbell has come up with a sensible scheme of free-standing legislation to fill the gap in time, but the reality is that this government had not let go the notion of egg labelling. Ms Horodony ought to be very proud because it is as a result of some of her work that we have moved towards a national scheme.

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