Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Free Range Eggs) Bill 2018 will ensure three things. Firstly, it will ensure that eggs marketed as 'free range' are eggs laid by hens that are able to, and do in fact, move freely on an open range during daylight hours on most days.

Secondly, it will ensure that 'free range' is a term limited to hens that are stocked at a density of no more than 1,500 birds per hectare.

Thirdly, it will clarify existing rules to ensure that stocking density is displayed prominently on egg cartons in only a 'hens per hectare' format.

Eggs are part of the weekly shopping list for all Australians and the egg industry is an important driver in the Australian economy. Free-range eggs have grown in popularity with consumers. But what defines a 'free-range egg'?

This issue was first raised with me by small-scale egg producers in my electorate. Many of the free-range farms through the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island are exactly how consumers would picture an egg farm, with plenty of space, grass and fresh air for the hens to roam freely. I am happy to admit that, before speaking to my local producers, I was unaware on the exact definition of free range. In my mind, that picture represented free range.

Little did I know that the Australian Consumer Law (Free Range Egg Labelling) Information Standard 2017, implemented by the Australian government in 2017, had significantly broadened the definition of 'free range'.

As it stands, free-range eggs are eggs laid by hens that have meaningful and regular access to an outdoor range during daylight hours, have the ability to roam and forage on that outdoor range and are subject to a stocking density of up to 10,000 hens. Farms with this stocking density are very different to farms with a stocking density of 1,500 hens. There is a vast difference in this farming practice.

Let's be clear: a stocking density of 10,000 hens does not reflect the consumer depiction of free range, and the cute pictures of hens on grass on the front of free-range egg cartons are not 10,000-hen farms. Nor does the vagueness about whether the hens actually do roam free and not just have access to roam—ambiguous at best and some would say misleading. In fact, my review of supermarkets showed that none of the producers that had 10,000 birds per hectare put those pictures on the front of any of their cartons.

It's clear that the current standards do not meet consumer expectations. I want to make this bill about providing relevant information to the consumer. I understand there is a place in the market for both barn-laid and caged eggs. My intentions with this bill are to ensure that there is information and protection for consumers and that there is clarity.

The Nick Xenophon Team promotes transparency and accountability, and I strongly believe that consumers should have all of the relevant information available to them when they are making their choices at the supermarket.

Since this issue was raised with me, I have consulted extensively with my community and with free-range egg farmers. The overwhelming message that I have received is that most people don't understand the definition of 'free range'. The assumption in the community is that 'free range' is the farm with green grass and hens roaming far and wide, as depicted on cartons. The reality, as it stands, is vastly different. For products that are allowed to be marketed under the same banner, there is a wide gap in farming practices.

I believe it is fair and reasonable for labelling laws to reflect community expectation. If community expectation of 'free range' is a farm where hens are outside for much of the day with lots of space, then legislation should reflect that. The current rules are ambiguous, and I believe this bill goes a long way to ensuring that we bring the existing definition of free range closer to the expectations of consumers.

I profess that I am not the first champion of this cause. Indeed, this issue has been raised several times over the past decade by representatives of several different political parties. I want to acknowledge Ms Tammi Franks, from the South Australian Legislative Council. She is a member of the Greens. She has done extensive work to promote this issue in South Australia, but she was told that this was a federal issue—so here I am.

I also support the private member's bill that my Liberal colleague in South Australia Mr Michael Pengilly, the member for Finniss, who is within the electorate of Mayo as a state member—a gentleman I don't often agree with—took to the South Australian parliament to implement some standards that this bill sets out.

I am not surprised that this issue crosses party lines, as it is at its heart an issue about providing consumers with the information they need to make an informed choice.

Reducing the stocking density of hens that are considered to be free range would bring our standards closer to those that are observed internationally.

The European Union requires eggs labelled as 'free range' to be laid by hens with a stocking density of no greater than 2,500 hens per hectare. This stocking density is also followed in the United Kingdom. To think that our current laws allow for a stocking density four times higher than that of Europe and the UK, where in many cases we have lower rainfall and less fertile soil—the two ingredients required for great pasture—shows how out of touch our laws are with consumer expectations.

The reason that this bill seeks to limit the maximum stocking density to 1,500 hens per hectare is to bring it in line with the CSIRO's model code, which was the voluntary code for free-range egg producers before the recent information standard came into place. I'm pleased this bill has the support of the RSPCA, whose code of conduct also recommends a stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare.

I'm also pleased that this bill has the support of CHOICE. CHOICE has been a long-time advocate for this issue. Their app, CluckAR, can be downloaded and used to scan egg carton labels so you can find out what the stocking density is on the carton and whether it meets your standards as a consumer. This app has been downloaded more than 109,000 times and has been used to scan more than 1.9 million egg cartons. That's an average of 2,500 scans per day. And we must keep in mind that not everybody has a smart phone and not everyone has the time to scan a carton while they're shopping—and nor should they. If ever you need evidence that this is a true consumer issue, this is it.

I'm sure many of my colleagues in this place would have received many emails in their inbox over the weekend from constituents urging them to support this bill. That's not from me. That's because this campaign has been taken up by CHOICE, and I thank them for their efforts in raising awareness on this issue. I can only hope that my colleagues listen to the concerns of their constituents and push for this bill to go to a vote or be adopted by government.

In an act of fortuitous timing, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission last week released its enforcement guidelines for free-range egg chicken claims, aligning them with guidelines for the federal government's information standard.

As I have said, this standard does not specify that hens must actually go outside to be considered free range. As long as they're provided meaningful access and have the ability to go outside, they will be considered free range.

I want to highlight the 2015 enforcement guidelines released by the ACCC before this new information standard was released. In those guidelines, the ACCC considered that if most hens do not range freely or do not go outside the barn then to market these eggs as free range would be a breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

My bill explicitly sets out a requirement for free-range eggs to be laid by hens that are able to do so and do in fact move freely in an open range during daylight hours. It's as simple as that. There is no ambiguity. This provides clarification for both producers and consumers.

I've drafted this bill with the thought of catering to egg producers, both big and small, who operate under the current rules. The changes in labelling requirements will not take effect until 12 months after the bill reaches royal assent. I understand that this would provide enough time for producers to make relevant adjustments, but I'm also open to amendments on this point, should it be necessary. I don't want to see any particular producer facing hardship because of labels. I understand it costs a lot to produce cartons, but no producer who I spoke to has more than 12 months worth of carton stock.

I hope that both the government and the opposition will see fit to support this bill and in turn support Australian consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, congratulate the member for Mayo on her work and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.