Page 4094 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 16 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
According to Parkwood’s own reporting to the national pollutant inventory, it has 14 employees. We have not seen information to support the higher numbers that have been mentioned in letters. It is likely that these are bolstered by including casual employees Parkwood employs for short periods when it annually slaughters the hens.
Let me also shed some light on the kinds of conditions that Parkwood provides to its workers. I will actually do this by reading from correspondence the Greens received from a former employee of Parkwood. The Assembly should consider this information when it talks about the apparent benefits that Parkwood brings to the territory. I will read from this letter verbatim:
I did some casual work at Parkwood Eggs a number of years ago and I witnessed cruelty. I witnessed the birds being removed from the cages and placed into plastic crates with about 10 in each container. They had to endure cramped conditions inside the crates with no food or water. They were placed into the crates from 7 o’clock in the morning and would be loaded onto a semi trailer that afternoon. The truck would probably leave to Sydney at night. They would probably not be unloaded until the following morning. They could be confined to the plastic crates for 24 hours or maybe longer.
I noticed the occupational health and safety standards at Parkwood Eggs to be appalling. I noticed workers had to climb over the crates stacked in rows against the cages while the cages were being unloaded. I noticed there were a number of fans below the floor without any mesh or any protection. In my opinion there was sufficient room for someone to fall in and have their leg trapped in the fans.
What the government should be doing, in addition to supporting this bill, is investigating target employment creation and supporting strategies for people on this kind of low paid employment. The government has said before that it believes its policies provide training and skills to enable low income earners to increase their productivity and move forward in the labour market to better jobs and higher wages. Here is an industry where that policy could readily be applied.
This is a bill that is largely about leadership. Will the government act on this issue when it has a chance to lead? Contrary to the claims by opponents, passing this bill would greatly improve the welfare of thousands or millions of chickens. Anyone who looks at the history of this issue in Australia and around the world will see that individual jurisdictions need to lead. When we do not lead, other jurisdictions just copy our uninspired approach. That is what Tasmania did after the ACT failed to pass the initial bill in 2007.
If we act, the minister would have real power to his words. He could lobby other states by saying that the ACT has acted. We would then have real authority and would be a genuine leader. We have done this on other welfare animal issues. We banned rodeos and animal circuses, for example. Since we did this, other parts of Australia have come on board. The Gold Coast was the most recent council to follow our lead.
I have also heard Mr Stanhope give great weight to the apparent economic contribution of Parkwood to the territory. This supposed economic benefit should be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .