Free-Range Eggs

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:52): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Business Services and Consumers a question on the topic of the labelling of free-range eggs in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The minister's predecessor, the Hon. John Rau when he was minister for consumers, advised via media release dated 13 September 2013 that:

When South Australian shoppers buy their free-range eggs, they will know they are getting the best.

And:

This means that the eggs will come from real free-range properties with no more than 1,500 hens per hectare.

He further advised:

An accreditation logo will now be developed and will appear on egg cartons that meet the requirements by early next year.

Fast forward five months to just prior to the state election when the Jay4SA Facebook page posted a graphic, reading, 'I'm voting for free-range NOT fake range.' Shared by many on that site, it also stated, 'Labor introduced a new code for the free-range egg industry,' in 2013, and 'that some producers have started to use it.' It also went on to say that Rohde's free-range eggs in Clare had been accredited under the code. As the minister should be aware, indeed Rohde's is accredited under the RSPCA accreditation scheme. Knowing this not to be the case I complained to the Electoral Commissioner, who found the post to be inaccurate, misleading and, indeed, ordered a public retraction. Accordingly, the Jay4SA website Facebook page subsequently published the following:

The ALP recognises that its earlier statements about the Labor Government's free-range egg code published on 27 February and 3 March…were inaccurate and misleading. The ALP accepts that the code has not in fact been introduced. It withdraws the claims in its advertisements and apologises to anyone who was misled by them.

I note, however, that the Facebook page still states:

We think Queensland's free-range classification of 10,000 hens per hectare is a joke. In 2013, Labor introduced a new code for the free-range egg industry. Our code set a maximum of 1,500 laying hens per hectare.

And indeed goes on to say:

As a result, shoppers can rest assured that when they buy South Australian accredited free-range eggs, that's what they're getting. Labor is committed to supporting initiatives that prevent cruelty to animals.

Therefore, my questions to the minister are:

1. Can the minister advise those people who did vote for free range, not fake range, whether the South Australian free range accreditation code has been finalised, and if all issues associated with the rollout of this have now been overcome?

2. Will that voluntary industry code stop producers who are producing above the 1,500 hens per hectare stocking density from claiming that their eggs are truly free range or, indeed, having the words 'free range' on their cartons?

3. How much will it cost genuine South Australian free-range egg farmers to participate in the South Australian accreditation scheme, and has it been budgeted for?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:55): I thank the honourable member for her important questions. Indeed, in September 2013 the former minister for business services and consumers announced that a new voluntary code would be drafted for the production of free-range eggs in South Australia. The code was to enable South Australian egg producers to adhere to a standard that would result in their product being badged as truly free range. Free-range eggs bearing the logo will allow consumers to readily identify them as being truly free range as well, obviously, as a premium South Australian product.

Going forward, the government will continue to do its work with industry to finalise a voluntary industry code and associated trademark, including the establishment and administration of an accreditation scheme. I have been advised that this would be a voluntary scheme and it would be only those egg producers who chose to opt in that would be part of the scheme.

I have received initial advice that the best way of branding those egg producers who adopt a code is through establishing a trademark. I have also been advised that registering a trademark can take more time than other methods—six months from instigating the process to completion—and therefore other methods of branding have also been investigated. I am still awaiting advice on those matters.

During the 2014 election the Labor government also committed to making it easy for South Australian shoppers to clearly identify foods that meet the established standard of free range. Basically, it extended the potential for this model to other produce. It also extended it not just in terms of it being South Australian; it also enabled the capacity to label food products as 'premium South Australian' products. So work is being undertaken in that space as well.

As the honourable member is well aware, there is currently no national enforceable definition of free-range eggs. Producers who do not meet standards in line with consumer expectations have been using the term for many years. When South Australian shoppers buy their eggs we obviously want them to know exactly what they are getting, as well as the environment from which it comes.

I have participated in national forums, ministerial council forums—most of which have now been disbanded by the current Liberal federal government—and I know that this issue has been on and off that agenda for many years. Although it has been strongly pushed and championed by South Australia—because our view has always been that the best way to proceed was through a nationally consistent approach, through a national code and national standards—unfortunately we have not been able to get other jurisdictions on board, so we failed to progress a national code.

I still believe that is the best way forward. I do not think it shows much possibility in the current climate, so South Australia is getting on with this other alternate scheme. Cabinet has approved the drafting of an industry code under the Fair Trading Act 1987, and it will require producers to meet standards, including a maximum stocking density of 1,500 layer eggs per hectare, unrestricted access to outside areas for a minimum of eight hours per day, outdoor areas to provide adequate shelter, and a prohibition on induced moulting.

These standards were reached following extensive consultation through a discussion paper that was released in June last year, and I am advised that there were about 350 submissions, so clearly it is something that is really resonating out there. They were received from the industry retailers and consumers, with over 95 per cent of those submissions supporting the concept of a code for South Australia, so there is a strong push for this.

The government recognises that South Australia imposing requirements on free range producers would not, under mutual recognition provisions, apply to free-range eggs that are produced in other jurisdictions, which is why we have always pushed for a nationally consistent approach in terms of imposing on those jurisdictions, and are able to be sold in that jurisdiction in accordance with its own regulatory requirements. That is still a vexed issue.

Despite Queensland recently increasing their regulatory regime to increase stocking density to a free range, which was from 1,500 now to 10,000, the South Australian government remains committed to a national solution and also to achieving a nationally agreed definition of free-range eggs at 1,500 hens per hectare, and we believe that this industry code is the best step forward for South Australia and will provide our producers with the symbol to help consumers recognise their product as premium and free range and compliant with particular codes.

The costing of accreditations, to the best of my knowledge, has not been completed and will not be able to be assessed until that work is fully completed. I remind honourable members that it was always aimed to be a voluntary scheme, and it is only those producers who want to opt in who would be bound by the accreditation requirements.