Legislative Council
BATTERY HENS
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before
asking the Attorney-General a question about battery hens and the Mutual Recognition Act.
Leave granted.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In September 1997 the Australian Capital
Territory Government passed legislation to phase out over six years the keeping of
egg-laying hens in cages. This led to a report by the Productivity Commission which has
found that the cost of phasing out battery eggs will be minimal. For the ACT ban to be
successful every State has to agree not to flood the ACT market with battery eggs from
their own States. This would require the States to agree to allow an exemption under the
Mutual Recognition Act 1992๓or the phase out will be annulled.
I understand that similar exemptions have been granted to South Australia, for
instance, to allow our container deposit legislation to function differently from other
States. The Productivity Commission public benefits test on the ACT legislation has found
that hen welfare will be enhanced by the ACT move, and consumers will pay no more than
$2.85 per person per year for eggs from an alternative housing system. It concluded that
only the legislative path was likely to be successful.
States have been encouraged to allow an exemption for the ban to be effective in the
ACT. Early today, I believe a petition of about 2 500 signatures from South Australians
calling for the Government to support the ACT laws was delivered to this Parliament. The
signatures have been collected by Australia's peak animal welfare lobby group, Animals
Australia. Will the South Australian Government allow this exemp-tion under the Mutual
Recognition Act to allow the ACT ban to be effective? If not, why not?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Mutual Recognition Act is committed to
the Premier and its administration is managed in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. I
will have to refer the questions to the Premier with a view to getting a reply. My
recollection is that the issue of the Beverage Container Act, for example, is somewhat
different from this because the Beverage Container Act is referred to specifically in a
schedule to the Mutual Recognition Act, whereas what the honourable member is looking for
is something not requiring an amendment to the Act. If you have to amend the Act, you have
to amend every Act around Australia. In any event, I will refer the question off and bring
back a reply.
Read the Government's reply: 25 May 1999
[Home] [Head Office] [SA Branches] [What's Hot in SA] [Mike Elliott] [Sandra Kanck] [Ian Gilfillan]