PORK INDUSTRY

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (17:16): I rise to my feet to talk briefly about a decision made by Coles Supermarkets earlier this week. Coles Supermarkets announced that it intends to broaden its sow stall fresh pork initiative to include all forms of Coles brand pork, including processed ham and bacon products produced in both Australia and overseas from 2014.

This is a welcome announcement from Coles. It is a matter which was debated in this place only a fortnight ago, when both this side and a majority of members from the other side of the house combined to support a motion to bring to the public's attention the unilateral decision previously made by Coles to cut out the use of stalls by 2014, which affected only local producers; and that is what really angered the pork industry and others. The decision previously made by Coles affected only local producers.

The other thing was that Coles tried to sell that decision on the basis that it was improving animal welfare. We were able to establish in this place that, overall, that decision could actually reduce animal welfare if we imported more product as a result, because the standards overseas are not as high as those in Australia. The decision was exposed for what it was: it was a marketing gimmick. It was about Coles trying to increase its market share; and that was also displayed by its correspondence to the Stock Journal, which I detailed in this place.

We quite rightly called on Coles not only to support our industry but also to support animal welfare by the decision that it subsequently made. It is good to see that it made that decision. The previous decision by Coles has been described by many as a double standard and, clearly, it was, because it imposed a higher standard of care on our local producers than is required overseas. What it did was to let down our local producers. It was prepared to support an increase in imports and a reduction of locally-produced pork.

The issue was never about improving animal welfare, because we all support endeavours to maximise the welfare of animals in our care. It was to ensure that the decision affected all producers, whether they are here, in Australia, or overseas—in other words, create a more level playing field. This subsequent decision by Coles will still cost local farmers money in terms of redoing their sheds, farms, etc., to meet that requirement. However, it actually gives our local farmers a bit of a fighting chance because it creates a more level playing field.

As I said, we were right in this place—both Labor and Liberal—a fortnight ago to bring this issue to the public's attention. We were able to assist by passing a resolution in this place to ensure that Coles knew that we would not stand by and allow our local industries to be destroyed with no net improvement to animal welfare.

I think that this subsequent decision produces a win, both for our farmers and animal welfare, and I commend the house for doing so. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Hammond in that debate. I enjoyed working with him on that issue.

Time expired.

At 17:20 the house adjourned until Tuesday 23 November 2010 at 11:00.