FOOD (LABELLING OF FREE-RANGE EGGS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 July 2013.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:45): I was quite interested to be presented with this bill, because the member for Finniss and the Hon. Tammy Franks struck me as an odd couple to bring a bill to parliament together. They probably disagree on a few things across the range of matters that the parliament deals with, so it immediately struck me that this bill was worthy of some consideration. On environmental and farming matters, the member for Finniss is a very proud former farmer, representing a rural conservative constituency—

Mr Pengilly: Still a farmer.

Mr GARDNER: Still a farmer, of course, as he says—and the Hon. Tammy Franks is a member of the Australian Greens and probably could not be characterised in the same terms. As much as I respect her as a fine member of the Legislative Council, I do not think she is a farmer from Kangaroo Island and she has a different perspective to the member for Finniss, and they have both passionately presented this to the respective chambers as an identical bill. So, looking at it, I was interested to see what they had to say.

I have to say that I was very surprised to learn that there was, in fact, no definition for what a free-range egg was. The supermarket shelves are full of eggs labelled with all sorts of different things. Over the course of my life I have noted that free-range eggs have become the dominant label. I do not think, when I was a child, that people paid so much attention to the matter, but now it seems that most eggs in the supermarket are labelled free range.

I do not buy eggs too often because I do not eat them, but I know that when people do purchase them they often take their own personal views into account. As the Hon. Tammy Franks said in her second reading explanation in the Legislative Council, there is a great deal of confusion, because there is no legal definition of free range. People who purchase eggs thinking that they are going to be free range do not necessarily know what that is going to mean. Meanwhile, there is a plethora of different labels that are used: barn raised, barn laid, caged, free range, environmental—I am quoting from Tammy Franks here—eco, farm fresh, vegetarian or organic.

I was wondering about the vegetarian eggs, and I have recently seen vegan eggs advertised, which apparently are not actually eggs, but look like eggs. No animal was harmed in the production of these eggs. It struck me as a surprising choice, but for those who might make a lifestyle choice as a vegan and want to eat eggs, I guess it makes sense.

Mr Pederick: I bet they are GMO.

Mr GARDNER: Presumably some sort of soy product is involved. The ethical considerations that people take into account when making purchasing choices are entirely their own choice and people are justified to expect that their ethical choices are going to be respected. Honesty in labelling is important. Of course, my electorate covers both metropolitan and regional parts of the near-Adelaide area and there is a divide. There is a divide in this chamber when different members come from completely different perspectives. There is a divide across our community. They say—or they certainly used to say—that our country rides on the sheep's back, but there is a disconnect.

There are many people in our city of Adelaide who spend no time in the country at all and no time with animals. From my electorate's point of view, this was really borne out to me recently when the Black Hill Pony Club was shut down, because that club gave people and kids from metropolitan Adelaide an opportunity to spend time with animals which, frankly, was the only opportunity that many of them had. Growing up in the city, riding the bus to school, spending time looking after a horse that was agisted in the near-urban area was a fantastic opportunity for them. Unfortunately, thanks to the government's cruel eviction of that club from the land—

The SPEAKER: The relevance to the price of eggs is?

Mr GARDNER: The relevance, sir, is in the fact that free-range eggs being labelled accurately and appropriately goes to the trust that city consumers may have, who might otherwise be disconnected from the rural lands on which they are grown, and the disconnect between the urban individual and the land is worthy of note. I am concerned about those things that do increase and add to that disconnect, and the Black Hill Pony Club, and the government's treatment of them, was one of those, and therefore the labelling of eggs is entirely connected in this way. At any rate, animal welfare is a significant concern for many people who do not spend much time with animals, was the next line that I was going to say, and it might have made more sense for me to argue with the Speaker with that line. Animal welfare is important for people.

I have to say that the farmers of Australia get a bit of a bad rap sometimes in metropolitan settings, unfairly so, because the farmers that I know are significant conservationists. The farmers that I know have a better understanding of their animals than many of the people who would claim all of the moral outrage in the world but do not actually spend any time looking after the animals. The farmers of Australia do not deserve that bad reputation, but they are vulnerable when corporations can potentially take advantage of the lack of definition in a situation like this; they are vulnerable to being presented in the wrong way. Public confidence in the farmers of Australia is important, and the public are more likely to have confidence in our farmers when labelling can be trusted, when labelling makes sense. Does this matter? Of course it matters. It matters that people can have confidence in what they purchase.

What this bill seeks to do is to demand that a person must not, for the purpose of effecting or promoting the sale of eggs, etc., etc., cause the eggs to be advertised or packaged in a way that describes eggs for sale as free range unless the egg producing chickens are maintained in accordance with 'not kept or housed' at more than 1,500 per hectare and not having their beaks trimmed—and there are various penalties involved. Free range suggests that eggs are going to be borne by hens that are raised and live in a natural situation, they are free to walk about. Currently, there are eggs labelled as free range where there are 20,000 chickens per hectare. That is going to make it impossible for a chicken to fossick, to live, to lay, to eat, comfortably or in a way that would be remotely sustainable in a natural environment; and that is important.

People who make a choice—an ethical choice, or an environmental choice, or a health choice, whatever reason is behind their choice—to purchase free-range eggs would expect that a much less dense environment for the chickens that lay those eggs would be available to them. The bill suggests 1,500 chickens per hectare. The member for Morphett who, of course, has a veterinary background, spoke in some detail about how that is a much more suitable level for the hen's health. The Liberal Party, of course, does not object to chickens being placed in a more dense situation, but we just do not believe they should be labelled as free range. If they are caged hens, if they are barn hens, then that can be done in a way that is humane and suitable for the animals, but label them as such, because people who buy those eggs would not think of that as free range.

So it is totally appropriate for a free-range egg to be labelled as free range and, therefore, I urge all members to support the bill. I commend the Hon. Tammy Franks and I particularly commend the member for Finniss who has represented his electorate and those free-range egg producers in his electorate extremely well in bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (10:54): The sad reality of this bill is that those hens that were laying eggs when I introduced this bill are no longer laying eggs and have been put to rest. It has been that long that it has been sitting in the house. I also have a conflict of interest. We have let our hen numbers run down to seven, but we have still got Kevin the rooster, and he was named after a former member of this place, I might add. However, I am disappointed that the government came into this place some weeks ago now and announced that they would not be supporting this bill. They have had months and months and months. The briefing that I had many months ago, over a year ago, indicated to me that they were not going to support it. I think they were done over by the bureaucrats. The government had plenty of time to go off to the now former federal government and have this matter dealt with by the federal consumer affairs legislation.

I understand, and have understood for quite some time, that the reality is now that there is very little we can do about this in the South Australian parliament because of the federal consumer affairs legislation. The Labor government here has dismally failed the free-range egg producers in South Australia. I do not trust the Australian Egg Corporation further than I could kick them and I know that that view is shared by other members, on this side of the house anyway. The member for Hammond and I were cajoled by the Australian Egg Corporation and basically threatened in a meeting in this place, which I found outrageous and disgraceful. They threatened to go to the press and we said, 'Well, you go. I couldn't care less if you go or not, quite frankly.' I think they are a mob of shysters and my view will not change.

Recently, the Attorney-General came into this place and talked about, and made some media comment about having a code of practice. Well, a code of practice is actually not worth the paper that it is written on. It is a nonsense. It just does not work because you have in the egg industry a different range of egg producers. The member for Hammond, in a former capacity, and I have never had any problem with caged egg producers. That is not an issue and that has not been an issue at all; if they are looked after humanely, that does not come into it. We were simply trying to limit the amount of free-range hens for free-range egg producers and have some sensible outcomes put on that so that the industry—and, again I say, those shysters in the Egg Corporation cannot run around and put their hands on things just to suit themselves.

I know that the vote will go down in this place; that is a pity. I think members in this place could have risen to the occasion and supported the bill. It would have been a good thing to do and it would have given some surety to the egg producers in South Australia—those who choose to produce free-range eggs. I am very grateful for those in the house who spoke to the bill and supported my legislation, both members of the Liberal Party and Independents in this place. I know that government members were stymied on it by circumstances, and I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that they have fallen over on this, but it just shows that they really have not come to grips with issues in regional areas.

They do not understand regional areas and they never will, and they can run around and call themselves country Labor or whatever but they would not have a clue what they were talking about, quite frankly. So, the issue is that I put the bill up in good faith, and it has taken months and months to get to where we are now, which is disappointing. However, in the best interests of business in this place, I will conclude my remarks, but I am pleased that I had the bill up and, again, I am pleased that members spoke to it, and I await the outcome of the vote.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.