FOOD (LABELLING OF FREE-RANGE EGGS) (NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is an ongoing saga, so to speak. We dealt with it just recently and I was delighted that the bill passed through the Legislative Council. There is a fair bit of egg on the face of the government, quite frankly, not to make too big a pun. It is completely ridiculous that the government will not support the bill in the lower house. It is a matter of deep concern to genuine free-range egg producers. I had a phone call only yesterday from another producer, I spoke with one last Sunday, and the emails and phone calls are continuing.

Quite simply, if the government through the Deputy Premier thinks that standing up and puffing and blowing about some so-called voluntary code is going to fix the issues with free-range egg production, he is having a lend of himself completely. It will not fix it because the Australian Egg Corporation, as far as I am concerned, is nothing much short of a mob of crooks. I have said that before and I will say it again. The whole system is geared towards the huge caged egg producers, and they have never been the issue with genuine free-range egg producers—never been the issue. The issue has been one of free-range egg producers producing a quality item which is genuinely free range.

The Legislative Council, those in another place had enough sense and enough brains to support the motion. I was very pleased that it has come back here so that we can have another swipe at those opposite because they have failed to do the job. I can clearly recall a briefing I had some 12 or 15 months ago now where the departmental honchos basically said, 'No, we're not going to support it, so run off and go back and that's the end of it.'

The minister in another place really does not understand the issue. Ministers come and go, as do members of parliament; however, I am concerned that free-range egg producers will get ridden over roughshod and that voluntary codes of practice will not work, purely on the weight of numbers. The structure of the Australian Egg Corporation's voting is that the more chooks you have the more votes you get. It is like something out of Communist Russia, quite frankly. It is blatantly ridiculous.

I do not know whether other members want to speak on this—it has come back here. I have said all this a number of times in the house and in the media over a couple of years. The free-range egg producers are relatively small in number, as opposed to the cage producers—who produce a quality item as well. As I said, that is not the issue, and calling them 'barn eggs' where they can get out of a shed every now and then is one thing but genuine, free-range egg producers or those who choose to limit to 1,500 birds per hectare, should be treated properly. They should be treated properly and not subjected to intimidation, bullying and outright bloody lying from the Australian Egg Corporation—excuse me—because that is what is going on. It is foolish and not helpful.

I do not know whether the government has had a rethink. I suggest they would not have because they are so busy fighting amongst themselves at the moment they probably do not have enough time to think about something sensible. It is disappointing to me that this will probably go down but I felt it was necessary to say a few words yet again. I have free-range egg producers in my electorate: one couple has over 50,000 free-range hens on Kangaroo Island and another one at Mount Compass has several thousand. They are hard working people. I know members in this place put in a lot of hours in a day, of all persuasions, and I have no argument with that, but these people work hard seven days a week from dawn to dusk, quite frankly, and they deserve better treatment than they are getting from this Labor government in South Australia.

They could have fixed it up when their federal counterparts were in government but they failed to do that. They are so busy counting votes for different people who may be leader that they do not have time to deal with this. With those few words, I urge members on both sides to support this, and I will take my seat.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (11:13): I am going to ruin the member for Finniss's day and advise him that, on behalf of the government, I do oppose this bill. I fully appreciate his sentiments about this, and before I finish I will tell you why. However, while the government supports the 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 that this bill is an appropriate response to the issue.

First, as stocking density of the number of egg-producing chickens per hectare posed in this manner would not, under mutual recognition provisions, apply to free-range eggs that are produced in another jurisdiction and are able 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. As it may be cheaper to produce, local free-range producers with systems that comply with the bill may find it hard to compete with interstate producers not subject to those limits. You only have to go to the supermarket to see that is currently happening.

Queensland attempted to address this issue by passing legislation that allows Queensland producers to label their eggs 'free range' if they comply with a 1,500 hens per hectare maximum free-range system. However, due to mutual recognition legislation, this does not restrict producers from other states who are not required to comply with Queensland's standards from labelling and selling their eggs as free range in Queensland. Confusing the issue even further, the Queensland government has recently announced that changes to their scheme will allow the stocking density of hens to increase from 1,500 per hectare to 10,000.

Without a national approach and the states being without the ability to regulate interstate growers, jurisdictions must consider options to develop a solution that provides consumers with certainty about what they are purchasing without causing detriment to the local egg industry. This bill will result in potentially adverse consequences for South Australian producers, as it will essentially introduce further regulatory burden on local producers only and offer no confidence to consumers that eggs labelled as free range are not produced in a system not exceeding 1,500 chickens per hectare.

Secondly, this 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 misplaces regulatory burden on thousands of food businesses and local retailers rather than the egg producers.

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Producers not meeting generally accepted standards have been abusing the term 'free range' for many years and, when South Australian shoppers buy their eggs, they should know exactly what they are getting and the environment from which it has come.

The government remains committed to a national solution and achieving a nationally agreed definition of free-range eggs at 1,500 hens per hectare. However, without a national approach at present, and states being without the ability to regulate interstate growers, jurisdictions must consider options to develop a solution that provides consumers with certainty about what they are purchasing without causing detriment to the local egg industry.

In June 2013, the government released a discussion paper on the introduction of a proposed new regulatory standard for free-range eggs in South Australia that will not disadvantage our local producers. Throughout the consultation period, more than 370 submissions were received, of which 95 per cent advocated their support for the government's proposed industry code. The government has announced that, following consultation and overwhelming support from the community, we will develop an industry code under the Fair Trading Act 1987 requiring producers to meet standards, including.

a maximum of 1,500 hens per hectare in a free-range system;

induced moulting is not permitted;

hens have access to range outdoors for a minimum of eight hours per day; and

sufficient overhead shade should be provided to encourage hens to access that range.

This approach by the government seeks to support true free-range egg producers in South Australia while not disadvantaging the broader industry.

While the government recognises the commitment of the member for Finniss and the Hon. Tammy Franks on this important issue, the government's industry code is the best step forward for South Australia. It will allow true free-range egg producers who choose to adhere to the specified standards to label their eggs as such, resulting in consumers being fully informed about the production of their eggs as truly free range. This voluntary code will not prevent other producers from labelling their eggs as free range. However, a grower could not use the associated badging unless they were, in fact, produced in accordance with the code.

I am happy to support the government's stand on this as a buyer of free-range eggs always, and who always tries to find South Australian eggs. I am very supportive of it despite childhood trauma. I was traumatised for life by being sent every day to collect the eggs from the chook house at the back. I hated doing this. I had to fight off the chooks to get the eggs. I was pecked. I must admit that a very aggressive streak came out in me and they often got a good kicking if they had a go at me. In the old days, they were true free-range eggs and they tasted a lot better. As I started, on behalf of the government, I do oppose this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:20): I will be brief. I support this measure. Codes are good, but they are more based on hope and a prayer than anything else. We have heard of The da Vinci Code, and there is an aftershave called the Armani Code. Codes are often wishful thinking. I have been on about labelling in this place for years, if you look through the Hansard. I do not know what it is, why it is so difficult to enshrine in law the proper labelling of products. For years we have had all this nonsense about inadequate labelling, and there is also the underlying issue of animal welfare. Anyone who disregards that does so at their political peril because, I can tell you, there is a lot of interest in animal welfare issues out there, and the supermarkets and others are responding to it; so ignore it at your peril.

We see some silly and meaningless labelling. I have mentioned some of these before. 'Fresh daily'—what does that mean? It does not mean the thing that you are buying came in that day; it just means that some of the things may have. What does 'fresh' mean? What does 'natural' mean? Snake poison is natural but it will kill you if you get it the wrong way. I saw in New South Wales recently 'grass fed lamb'. I thought most lambs did eat grass, but I am not sure what else lambs are eating. I do not think many of them are in feedlots, but you could probably put them in a feedlot. 'No hormones added'—if there were no hormones in the cattle there would not be much in the way of a beast, at the end of the day.

It is the same with the fish industry. I know somebody who runs one of the biggest fish and chip shops in South Australia. None of their fish comes from Australia—none—yet the people going in there probably think they are buying butterfish or mulloway from down the Coorong. It is coming from China now. Even garfish is coming from China. The Chinese are producing everything. I am not critical of the Chinese—they are fantastic people, a fantastic nation—but we cannot even be told what we are buying. Let us have it enshrined in law rather than a code, which is, at the end of the day, Mickey Mouse.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:22): I rise to also support the member for Finniss' Food (Labelling Of Free-Range Eggs) No. 2 Amendment Bill. This is a bill that has come about with the support of the Hon. Tammy Franks in the upper house. I must say it is a rather unholy alliance between the Greens and the member for Finniss.

Mr Gardner: No holes in it.

Mr PEDERICK: No holes in it. Anyway—

Mr Pengilly: Strange bedfellows.

Mr PEDERICK: Strange bedfellows, the member for Finniss said. I absolutely support this. We have had many meetings with the egg corporation. I have visited various egg farms in the state. About 12 months ago, with the member for Finniss, I visited both Graham and Kathy Barrett from Katham Springs on Kangaroo Island, and Tom and Fiona Fryar on Kangaroo Island. Tom and Fiona are a couple who met in a shearing shed. Tom was a shearer and Fiona was a roustabout, I believe. I have a lot of respect for a bloke who, as I did for a while, pushes the handpiece shearing. They have worked extremely hard to build a very successful business with, I think, 50,000 hens, free range, on the island, which gives a great opportunity to have free-range chickens.

I just want to reiterate what we on this side of the house are on about in supporting the member for Finniss, and that is truth in labelling. As I have said here many times before, I do not mind eating caged eggs. I just think we need to have the absolute truth in labelling so that people are not just jumping on the bandwagon, and that is what would happen under the so-called voluntary code of conduct with the Labor Party.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:24): Sir, you have heard what this side of the house has said and we have heard what the other side has said. It is all about truth in labelling. Let us put the thing to the vote.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.