Page 3664 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cage farming. The suffering of dogs, cats, horses and wildlife because of fireworks is certainly more visible than the suffering of caged chickens. But to value the suffering of these animals over others is a very peculiar double standard.
Before I describe the aspect of the bill that relates to egg display requirements, I will make some comments regarding the other arguments I have already heard from the Liberal and Labor parties. Mrs Dunne has already made comments about employment at Parkwood. Of course it is true that if Parkwood vanished some employees would need to find new jobs. I agree this is a valid concern. However, as a mechanised factory farming system, cage farming requires very few employees. Barn or free range systems would create more jobs. So converting to one of these systems would be a win on many levels.
In 2007, Parkwood reported that they only had 14 employees. That is the only official reporting I have heard. The higher numbers that were mentioned in the letters that Mrs Dunne tabled yesterday are questionable. I think it is possible that these are bolstered by including the casual employees that Parkwood employ for short periods when they annually slaughter the hens. Possibly they are inflated by counting workers who work in related facilities, such as distribution centres or granaries, and these jobs would not, I understand, be affected because they will still service other Pace Farm facilities.
Mrs Dunne might be interested to know that I wrote to every Parkwood employee back in June after I received similar form letters to the ones which she received and tabled yesterday. I offered to meet with them and talk about their issues, but I have as yet to receive a reply. I also tried to organise a visit to Parkwood to meet management to discuss the issues, but that also has not been accepted. I take it that the concerns about employment are not possibly overwhelming.
The bill also seeks to take employment into account by phasing out cage eggs, starting from 2011. This allows almost two years since I introduced the bill to allow employees and Parkwood to transition to other work. Of course, the better solution would probably be for Parkwood to convert to barn or free range production.
Members may also wish to consider the age of Parkwood’s facilities, which are fully depreciated. It is also questionable whether—and it has been suggested to me—Parkwood’s dilapidated equipment may not fully comply with the poultry codes of conduct. Replacing this would be extremely costly. On the basis of this, it is possible that the Parkwood facility will need to change or go out of business anyway.
I have also heard arguments that other jurisdictions need to act on cage eggs, rather than the ACT acting alone. On the contrary, I would argue that given the situation in Australia the ACT needs to act first to spur action. When the ACT government failed to act the last time the ACT Greens introduced a cage egg bill, it was a great setback. Other jurisdictions looked to us and just mimicked our inaction. With some brave action, Australia could have phased out cage eggs by now, just as other countries have done. This is actually a great chance for the ACT to be a leader, to act on what is right, and other jurisdictions will be moved by our action.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .