Page 4084 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
smaller shops, they might only have a couple of cartons of eggs on display, and the proposed sign may exceed the area used to sell the cage-produced eggs. Further, the requirement for a red border to be placed around the cartons of cage-produced eggs would be difficult for stores to implement given the need by stores to have some degree of flexibility.
The government is also concerned that the proposed signs are misleading in that they focus on one aspect of cage egg production. The proposed signage does not present a full and balanced picture on the issues around egg production. It does not treat alternative methods of production evenly. It is not correct to say, as the proposed signs imply, that all cage hens live in cages with a floor space smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. While it is true that the model code allows for floor space less than an A4 sheet of paper, the average space available, for instance and most pertinently, for hens at Pace Farm’s facility is 750 square centimetres per bird. In some cases, birds there have 850 square centimetres. While I do not dispute that much still needs to be done to improve industry standards and the conditions for poultry, that is not the point here, and the proposed signs would be misleading in an ACT context.
The scrutiny committee has made some interesting comments about human rights implications for these signs, particularly the right to freedom of expression. One argument that was used by the committee to justify the signs on human rights grounds is that they are not misleading. However, as I have just mentioned, the government believes that, indeed, the signs would, as a matter of fact, be misleading in the ACT context. If we accept the general proposition that retail signs will not amount to an infringement of the right to freedom of expression if they are not misleading, among other things, then we should aim to ensure, as the government is seeking to do, that the signs are, in fact, not misleading.
Work has been undertaken at the national level to develop agreed standards as to what constitutes cage eggs, barn eggs and free-range eggs, and on improving the national code of practice on keeping of poultry for egg production. It is expected that the revised code will go to the primary industry ministerial council in 2010, and it is likely that the revised code will require improved conditions for keeping of poultry. I will certainly be working to ensure that this is the outcome. If the ministerial council agrees to changes to the code next year, the point-of-sale sign proposed in this bill may very well further depart from an accurate description of what actually constitutes cage eggs.
Retail signs should also not be seen as the sole means of influencing consumers’ choice of eggs. The raising of awareness of welfare issues in the poultry industry is not confined to signs on supermarket shelves. Lobby groups will continue to raise issues through the media. I believe improved retail signage should help consumers make choices that accord with the attitudes that they have formed themselves about the different forms of egg production rather than instruct or cajole.
The government will be moving amendments to the provisions of the bill which deal with the Eggs (Labelling and Sale) Act to promote what we believe will be clearer identification of egg production methods through point-of-sale signage. In some respects, the government’s amendments go further than Ms Le Couteur’s bill. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .