Page 1997 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
free-range system. If it did that, it would almost certainly increase employment in the ACT. The fact is that the Australian egg industry association has pointed out that Parkwood’s cage infrastructure is already older than its useful lifespan. That is another reason why Parkwood might like to upgrade to a new production system.
What about Parkwood’s economic contribution to the territory? How important is that? Firstly, with only 14 employees, Parkwood is unlikely to be paying payroll tax to the territory, because a business has to pay a payroll tax only when it pays wages of more than $125,000 per month. Secondly, I have seen Pace’s lease for the Parkwood property, and it is a peppercorn lease. It pays only $486 per year to the territory as rent. Many families in Canberra pay that amount in rent every week. Thirdly, where do all the eggs from Parkwood go? Not to the ACT. They go to Minchinbury in New South Wales. They are packed there and distributed. The ACT then re-imports the eggs. I have also heard suggestions that Parkwood has a packing and distribution facility and would lose that business if Parkwood closed down. In fact, all the Parkwood facility does is just pack up the ACT eggs and ship them to Minchinbury. If you look at the cartons of Pace eggs in supermarkets in the ACT, you will see that they all say they are from New South Wales.
Having looked at these facts, I confess that I am still waiting to hear real arguments that Parkwood brings great economic benefit to the territory. We need to at least keep these points in mind when we weigh the utility of Parkwood against the benefits brought to our society by ending one of the most shameful forms of factory farming.
We should also carefully examine the claim that if Parkwood is faced with a ban it would just re-establish its enormous cage chicken operation across the New South Wales border. Would it really do that when there is a clear worldwide and national trend away from cage eggs?
A recent survey of ACT residents found that 84 per cent of all respondents felt that it was cruel to keep hens in battery cages. Members may be interested to know that in the UK and Ireland sales of cage-free eggs have already overtaken sales of battery eggs. The trend is growing strongly in the ACT, thanks partly to the good work of the government and other groups such as the RSPCA who have helped to move businesses and government agencies away from cage eggs. Pace might actually see it as a business opportunity to convert its operation to a barn or free-range system.
Not only are consumers trending towards cage-free eggs; I believe this bill will strongly assist the trend. A key feature of the bill is that it changes the way that cage eggs can be displayed by retailers in the ACT. Retailers will need to display cage eggs separately from other eggs. Cage eggs will also be accompanied by a sign explaining that cage egg production is banned in the ACT and that there are animal welfare concerns with this production method.
The intention is to clearly inform consumers at the point of sale of which eggs come from a cage system. This will overcome the problems caused by the often confusing labelling on egg cartons. Although eggs are currently labelled “cage”, “barn laid” or “free range”, these are small, sometimes easily hidden labels. Cage egg cartons also often contain confusing other labels such as “grain fed”, “omega 3” or “vegetarian”. There would no doubt be some consumers who care about animal welfare who are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .