Page 1365 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are killed. This happens because the hens are spent from a laying point of view. They are simply not going to keep laying. However, in better conditions hens will often live for eight to 10 years and I believe that some live for 20 years. Hens in decent conditions keep laying for many years.
The economic reason that they are taken away from the battery hen production is that they are not being well looked after and they are worn out. Battery cage production basically sees hens as biological machines and under this sort of production method they just wear out. The Greens do not see hens simply as machines. The Greens see hens as sentient creatures and we think that their welfare is important.
The other reason that has been advanced for keeping Parkwood operating as it is at present is the economic contribution and the employment of 14 people. I say 14 people because that is what Parkwood itself said in the 2007 national pollutant inventory. In the debate last week the government stated that Parkwood’s turnover was $3 million annually and that it employed 60 people. But I understand that those 60 people are only employed once a year when, as I said, the chickens are regarded as spent and they are then “destocked”—that is, taken away and killed.
The Greens do support agricultural employment and manual jobs such as these. We think it is really important that there is diversity of employment in the ACT. However, we believe that, if the facility was converted to either barn production or free range production, there would be more people employed, not fewer people employed. So I do not believe that this bill is in any way anti employment.
The other argument that has been expressed is that, if we ban this here, it will just happen somewhere else. That is quite possibly not true. We can see in Australia and in the rest of the world that there is an increasing trend for people to consume free range eggs rather than battery cage eggs. So I think it is very likely that if Parkwood stopped producing cage eggs, the egg production would be replaced by free range production, not by cage production.
The argument that it is the wrong thing to do but, if we do not do the wrong thing, someone else will do the same wrong thing is not a particularly brilliant argument. It is an argument that is used a lot, particularly in the climate change debate, but I do not think there is a real reason for it.
In addition to banning battery cage egg production, the bill requires the responsible ACT government minister to take steps to promote a national ban on cage eggs. The intention is that other Australian jurisdictions will enact an equivalent ban on battery cage systems, eventually leading to the elimination of battery cage egg production in Australia. Other Australian jurisdictions have previously expressed a willingness to move away from cage systems, but no jurisdiction has acted. Enacting this bill will make the ACT the leading Australian jurisdiction and, in combination with diplomatic action by the government and cooperation from businesses, will stimulate positive action in other states and territories.
The bill recognises that other poultry housing systems also have adverse animal welfare impacts. It requires the minister to promote improvements to the living
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video