House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Food (Labelling of Free-Range Eggs) Amendment Bill FOOD (LABELLING OF FREE-RANGE EGGS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 20 June 2013.) Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN House of Assembly Stuart Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:47): I rise today to speak on this private member's bill, with regard to the labelling aspects of what is and what is not a free-range facility, a free-range hen, a free-range egg, etc. This is a very important issue to deal with. Importantly, it does not only apply to eggs and does not only apply to free-range facilities. This is a very important issue for the seafood industry in South Australia, for the fruit industry, particularly the citrus industry, in South Australia and for many other products, but particularly locally South Australian grown, developed and produced food products. It is very straightforward and very simple. I am sure all members of this house would agree that of course it should be clear as to what exactly is a free-range chook and what is not, and whether an egg that you buy at your corner deli or at a huge national supermarket chain comes from that sort of facility, because people should have the right to know so that they can have the right to make an accurate choice. You cannot make an informed choice if you do not have accurate information. We also all know that a very important part of this issue is the opportunity for producers to earn a premium for their products, if consumers want to support whatever production method they use. Equally, it is important that consumers have the choice to choose the cheapest, if they want to. We members here in this place are typically very fortunate to be in the position to make choices. I think we would generally encourage people to make choices that we would agree with, whether it were clean and green energy or whether it were a particular product that had certain safety aspects to it or whether it were free-range eggs or whatever it might be. I think, as an aside, that it is very important to recognise that, at least for me, encouraging a family whose budget is extremely tight to choose what they can afford is very important as well. A family that is struggling with its mortgage, its rent, or whatever, also deserves the opportunity to choose the cheapest product that suits their purposes. I think to pretend that that is a poor choice is terribly unfair to a vast majority of the community. To get back on track, it is equally as important that people who do have the opportunity to choose to pay a bit more to get what they might consider to be a premium product or a more ethically-produced product or a product that is better for the environment, a locally produced product whatever that is, have the right to make that choice, too, and they can only do so if they have accurate information. We are talking particularly about free-range eggs in the member for Finniss' private member's bill, and I commend him for bringing this bill forward. Certainly I, and all of my colleagues, support him on this matter. The principle is the same, as I have said, in the seafood industry, in the fruit industry and many others, and particularly in the part of the Riverland that I represent in the electorate of Stuart: the Blanchetown, Morgan and Cadell areas, which have been absolutely ravaged by drought. They are still recovering. Unfortunately, some sections of those communities will never recover. Some sections of those communities have unfortunately had to exit. Fortunately, some sections are battling along and they are rebounding and doing very well. The citrus industry is another industry in our state which has been exceptionally unfairly discriminated against by inaccurate and inappropriate labelling. I commend the member for Chaffey for the very public stance he took about a week ago on the steps of Parliament House on a very specific citrus product, where the labelling was misleading. We all know that there are situations where labelling might be misleading because it is inaccurate. It might be misleading because technically it is accurate but things can be hidden in the fine print; or, in addition to the technically correct fine print, there could be some other information which leads the consumer to assume certain things that are not true. I think often people are deliberately led to assume those things. I am a very strong advocate for very clear, very accurate, very up-front labelling, and that labelling has to include ingredients, it has to include packaging and it has to include processing, a whole range of issues that are important, which connect directly to free-range eggs. If a consumer wants to go to the supermarket or their corner store and buy a carton of eggs, they need to know whether they came from intensively farmed poultry businesses, from barn-laid poultry businesses or from genuinely free-range poultry businesses. That is what the member for Finniss is trying to achieve here and that is what the Liberal opposition is trying to support: for the consumer to know really clearly, front and centre, what decisions they are making without having to hunt. I can tell you from my personal experience in supermarkets and in the smaller family stores and corner stores where my wife and I shop—and I must admit that my wife would do at least 80 per cent of the shopping and I would do, at most, 20 per cent of the shopping—that it is really hard. My latest experience was buying some cheese in a store in the electorate. There were two brands: one was from the major supermarket and one was from a small cheese-producing company. The small cheese-producing company's label made it very clear where their cheese came from. The major supermarket's cheese, I could not find it; I literally could not find it. So it was an easy decision for me: I went with the one that I knew was locally produced. I am not supporting one brand or another, but anybody who tries to hide those facts from consumers is doing the wrong thing, as far as I am concerned, and anyone who is trying to supply those facts for consumers is doing the right thing, and from that point onwards they have to compete based upon the quality of their product, the price of their product, the attractiveness of the packaging, the location on the shelves, and all the sorts of things that we are familiar with. The truth in the labelling and the availability of the information in the labelling have to become a given. It should not be a situation where you support a product because they give you all the information you need to make a decision. Every product should give you all the information you need to make a decision—and be readily available—and then you compete after that. I support this bill wholeheartedly. I would also add that, as well as the frustration to egg producers that poor labelling and poor availability of facts information to the consumer about whether the eggs come from chooks that were genuinely free range or not, there is also the fact that many genuinely free range egg producers have been thwarted and, in some cases, put out of business by over-zealous regulation. I can give a very direct, home-grown example. In the small town of Wilmington where I live, a local farming family, that has been there for generations, as a supplement to their income, grow chooks that are genuinely free range and produce genuine free range eggs. They cannot afford to comply with the additional labelling and licensing costs that the government has forced upon them and they are no longer in that business. What happens now is that the small supermarket in Wilmington can no longer supply their locally produced eggs. That is a great shame. They have had difficulties in the past with issues with regard to labelling and competing with egg producers that do not produce genuinely free range eggs (which the member for Finniss is addressing), and they have difficulties currently with regard to being able to afford the extra cost of regulation and compliance which has been thrust onto them by the government. One of those issues has been fixed by the member for Finniss in this bill, hopefully, but one of those issues is not going to be fixed and, unfortunately for this egg producer in Wilmington—and others, I might add, particularly in the Eudunda area, which I also represent in the electorate of Stuart—they can no longer produce their eggs. I wholeheartedly call on every member here to support this bill because it is the right thing to do. The Hon. L.R. BREUER House of Assembly Giles The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (12:57): I had a speech prepared but, in the interests of time, I will reduce it to dot points. I am very supportive of the member for Finniss' logic behind this but, on behalf of the government, I oppose this bill. While the government supports true free-range egg producers in South Australia and is supportive of a nationally enforced definition of free-range eggs, the government does not believe this bill is an appropriate response to this situation. This bill would result in a 1,500 chickens per hectare limit applying only to eggs produced in this state. A stocking density imposed in this manner would not, under mutual recognition provisions, apply to free-range eggs that are produced in another jurisdiction, and are unable to be sold in that jurisdiction in accordance with its regulatory requirements. Interstate eggs produced in systems with higher stocking densities could still be brought into South Australia and sold as free range and they would be cheaper to produce. Local free-range producers with systems that comply with the bill may find it hard to compete with interstate producers. The bill may result in potentially adverse consequences for South Australian producers as it will essentially introduce a further regulatory burden on local producers only. The bill amends the Food Act 2001 which regulates food businesses that sell or handle food intended for sale. This appears to be inappropriate as it places a regulatory burden on thousands of food businesses rather than the egg producers. The government proposes to introduce a voluntary industry code under the Fair Trading Act 1987 which will allow producers who choose to adhere to the specified standard to label their eggs as such, resulting in consumers being fully informed about the production of their eggs as truly free range. The industry code is a move that is set to benefit both egg producers and consumers. The government's consultation on the proposed industry code closed on 19 July and we were pleased with the number of submissions that were received. The government hopes to be announcing the next steps in supporting free-range egg producers in the very near future. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner. [Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]