FREE-RANGE EGGS

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question about free range eggs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Members would be well aware that last year the ACCC successfully prosecuted a South Australian egg producer who had falsely labelled eggs as free range when they were patently not. However, even that definition of free range is a definition in dispute. The Egg Corporation's contention that stocking densities of up to 20,000 birds per hectare—rather than what true free range producers and organisations such as the Humane Society contend, which is 1,500 birds per hectare—is hotly contested. It is a blatant exploitation of consumer goodwill and it undermines not only the consumer's confidence in genuine free range eggs but also directly economically undermines those genuine free range producers who are doing the right thing and spending the extra money required to provide higher welfare standards for their stock.

It is also undermining South Australia's reputation for a clean and green food product; indeed, one of the strategies of the Weatherill government. The 1,500 birds per hectare figure is, in fact, important. At this level it does not require that the birds' beaks be painfully trimmed to avoid the injuries and deaths that would otherwise occur from the birds attacking each other. I also note that most recently this definition, after extensive consultation, has been endorsed by the ACCC and the Egg Corporation's contention for a definition of 20,000 has been rejected.

Today, the minister would be aware that South Australia's genuine free range egg producers have banded together and the 18 of them have decided to stick their own stickers on their cartons labelling them true free range if they have no more than 1,500 birds per hectare. They have done this because in the absence of government regulations to define and codify free range egg standards they are being forced to take this measure and their only fight back against the misleading labelling is to introduce these stickers. These stickers will also inform customers that those particular cartons are what the Humane Society and certainly the Greens' bill before this place would call true free range. My questions to the minister are:

1. Given that we have now had a ruling from the ACCC refuting the Australian Egg Corporation's attempt to lift the stocking density from 1,500 to 20,000 birds per hectare, will the government finally take action at a legislative level?

2. Will, and if so how, will the Weatherill government support those free range egg producers who have now announced that they are going to put stickers on their egg cartons?

3. Why hasn't this government committed to take action given that other jurisdictions have, notably Queensland, to legislate a genuine free-range stocking standard of 1,500 birds per hectare?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for her most important questions. Indeed, the issue of egg labelling produced under free range conditions has been the subject of a great deal of debate and consideration over quite some time, so I think it is quite misleading for the Hon. Ms Franks to say nothing has been done.

This state government has been working very hard with other jurisdictions to try to work towards a national federally consistent approach to egg labelling. We know it is an issue of great concern to consumers. Truth in labelling and clear, consistent labelling is what consumers are calling for, and we know there have been protracted considerations over a considerable period of time on issues around egg labelling.

South Australia's approach has been to attempt to work with other jurisdictions to land on a uniform definition. South Australia has to import more of its eggs from other jurisdictions than what we export. Currently we are not producing enough eggs to meet our own domestic demand, so there is quite a bit of movement of eggs around different states. The preferred position is to have a nationally consistent approach.

A great deal of work has been done on that through our ministerial council forums. I think I have reported on that in this place before, so I do not think I need to go back over the work done there. Regarding the issue about the standard, the 20,000 hens or less, the ACCC has positioned itself on that. So it appears that we really are back to square one, which is most unfortunate. However, I have certainly asked the agency in light of the recent changes to provide me with options in terms of ways to go forward. As I said, the preferred approach is a nationally consistent approach, but if that is not possible then I think it is time we looked at what other options are available to us. My concern is that we may have exhausted some of those—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Perhaps an act, perhaps legislation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, legislation is such a simplistic way of looking at things. As I have said, we currently import more eggs than we produce. We can legislate here but it is not binding on other jurisdictions, so then we just have this mismatch of a whole heap of different labelling systems which is even more confusing for our consumers. As I said, that is the rationale underpinning the reason why South Australia has worked hard with other jurisdictions to try to land on a uniform way of approaching this.

I am very much frustrated by recent events and I have asked my officers to go back, have another look at it and see what options are available to us. That is the state of play at the moment. I certainly share the Hon. Tammy Frank's frustration at the lack of progress towards a consistent, united national approach. You would think labelling a chook egg would be a simple thing, but there are obviously complexities. As I said, I think we have exhausted some avenues and we need to go back and look at what options are available to us.