2016-04-13
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and relates to the recent changes agreed to by the Victorian government, which will see eggs produced on farms with up to 10 000 birds per hectare and no requirement to actually be outside labelled 'free range'. Given that the current model code published by the CSIRO sets the maximum acceptable live weight densities for free range birds at 1500 birds per hectare, why has the government agreed to a severe winding back of the free range standard, letting down consumers and existing genuine free range farmers and worsening animal welfare?
Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — I thank Ms Pennicuik for her question and for her interest in this matter. At a recent meeting of consumer affairs ministers, at which I was obviously not in attendance, there were arrangements agreed to which will provide greater clarity and certainty for consumers. The question of what is and what is not free range in relation to labelling has been a vexed one for a very long time. I believe this is something that consumer affairs ministers have been discussing for some time.
The new arrangements, as Ms Pennicuik indicated in her question, provide a definition and clarity around the definition, which includes up to 10 000 birds per hectare — to translate that, it is around 1 square metre a bird — and also access to entry and exit from a contained facility so that those birds are able to move freely.
It is important for consumers to know what they are buying. Consumers in increasing numbers are requiring these kinds of changes from industry, and in turn the consumer affairs ministers of the commonwealth have taken it upon themselves to recognise the need for certainty for consumers on this score.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister. I do not agree with the minister that we are going to get certainty because I would say that most consumers would consider that 'free range' means that the birds are outside, and there is no requirement in this new definition for birds to actually be outside. They may have meaningful — or meaningless — access to outside, but they do not actually have to be there.
A media release by the Victorian Farmers Federation dated 31 March states that both the minister and Minister Garrett listened carefully from the start and remained consultative throughout the process. My question is: who else did the minister consult with about this issue, and what scientific evidence did the government base its decision on?
Ms PULFORD (Minister for Agriculture) — I thank Ms Pennicuik for her further question on this matter. It is important that consumers have certainty because for quite some time now there have been different standards applied by different producers. A consumer standing in the aisle at the supermarket reading the packaging, depending on their brand preference, was being bombarded with information or assertions about free range that were just completely inconsistent, so this is a positive step.
On Ms Pennicuik's question and interest in animal welfare standards, there has not been a change to current animal welfare standards. The 'free range' in our regulations is not a standard; it is a guide or a suggestion for industry. It is not something that is required.