Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [4.58 p.m.]: In speaking on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009—

Mr Richard Amery: Do you think you should? You are on the board of an abattoir.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I used to be. I am pleased to see the member for Mount Druitt in the House because he has vast experience as a former Minister for Agriculture. Of course, there should still be an agriculture portfolio. The object of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalties that may be imposed for offences under the regulations relating to animal trades and the confinement or use of laying fowl for commercial egg production and to make it an offence to fail to comply with a notice issued by an inspector in relation to an animal. The topic of cage layer hens creates a great deal of discussion throughout this country and the world.

New regulations were implemented in 2008 to improve the welfare of cage layer hens. Those regulations required increased floor space, and minimum cage heights and cage door sizes. The majority of egg producers in New South Wales have adopted the new regulations. However, I understand that some producers are still failing to comply. This legislation will increase the penalties for offences against the layer hen cage provisions in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Regulations from $2,750 to $5,500 for individuals and to $22,000 for corporations. That will bring this State's penalties into line with those in States such as Queensland and Western Australia.

The aim of the animal trades codes of practice is to protect animals used and kept for commercial purposes. National standards from livestock enterprises have been agreed to and endorsed by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. The first of these will be standard for commercial pig production, which will be introduced under the regulation later this year. This amendment is designed to ensure consistency for all livestock species and avoid similar issues that have arisen in relation to egg producers. The bill also aims to broaden the scope of inspectors notices. Currently, notices must relate to the care of an animal. I believe the proposed amendments will allow inspectors notices to apply to any contravention of the Act or regulation, not just those that are considered to fall within the meaning of care of an animal. As the member for Upper Hunter, who represents our shadow Minister in this place, said, we will not oppose this bill.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [5.00 p.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009, particularly as it relates to the New South Wales egg industry and penalties. New South Wales is the largest egg producer in Australia, accounting for 37 per cent of the nation's egg production. The New South Wales egg industry has a gross production value estimated at $123 million. It comprises some 176 egg producers, four million layer hens and employs approximately 3,700 people throughout the egg supply chain. It is certainly no yoke. This is not an insignificant industry. The New South Wales Government fully appreciates the importance of a productive and profitable layer hen industry. We are also committed to improving the welfare of layer hens.

The bill will improve the welfare of caged layer hens by providing increased maximum penalties for breaches of the layer hen cage regulations. Nationally agreed standards for the housing of caged layer hens were implemented from 1 January 2008 in the interests of improving animal welfare. These national standards are regarded as striking the right balance between improving animal welfare and providing a realistic framework for a viable New South Wales egg industry. Since the issue of improving cage standards was first raised, many egg producers have voluntarily adopted the new cage sizes. Some began adopting the new framework well before they were required to do so—certainly the more progressive of them did so.

The New South Wales Government has worked closely with egg producers during the transition to the larger cage size by providing a range of advisory services. For example, Industry and Investment NSW employed a full-time poultry industry development officer to assist producers through the transition period. In addition, a computer-based decision support system was developed so producers could conduct their own economic analysis of the viability of building new sheds, or retrofitting existing structures with bigger cages. The services of an Industry and Investment NSW environmental engineer were also available to provide technical advice to producers on options for new cage installation. I am pleased to say the RSPCA has been following up on compliance with the caged hen standards since the regulation was introduced. Since the introduction of the regulation, the egg industry has generally worked hard to comply with the new standards. More than three-quarters of egg producers in this State now comply with the national requirements.

Unfortunately, the RSPCA is detecting a number of small producers and, unfortunately also, several larger producers who are not as yet compliant with the new standards. About 30 egg producers are still operating with cage sizes that do not meet the national standards. Some of these producers are taking steps to comply, but others do not seem to be making any effort at all to meet the standards. Some non-compliant producers believe if they are caught the current maximum penalty of $2,750 for individuals can simply be absorbed as a business expense. Clearly, for a few the current penalty regime does not provide a strong enough deterrent for non-compliance. The New South Wales Government wants to make it clear to egg producers that it expects full compliance with the new standards. That is why the bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for breaches of the layer hen cage regulations from $2,750 to $5,500 for individuals, and to $22,000 for corporations. This will bring penalties in New South Wales into line with Queensland and Western Australia—the States with more recent legislation in this area.

The Government is confident that higher penalties will act as a stronger deterrent against breaching the regulation, particularly for the bigger commercial operators. It is not fair that those producers who have already invested heavily in meeting the new standards should be disadvantaged in the marketplace by those who refuse to move forward. In a letter to the Minister for Primary Industries, the Australian Egg Corporation has reaffirmed its support of the proposed amendments. The Australian Egg Corporation advised:

The Australian egg industry fully supports any move by your Government to gain compliance by NSW egg producers to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 as it relates to layer hen housing.

The corporation goes on to say:

we are appreciative of your expeditious move to increase the penalties associated with non-compliance of the Regulation as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009.

This letter demonstrates the strong commitment of the egg industry to protect its reputation and the welfare of layer hens from the actions of a minority of non-compliant producers who, it appears, will have to be brought screaming to the table to comply. This 100 per cent increase in penalties should go a long way towards doing that. The bill will deliver greater protection for industry and improved animal welfare outcomes. I commend it to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [5.07 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill, which will increase the maximum penalty for breaching the cage size requirements for layer hens or for breaching the Animal Trades Code of Practice. I have repeatedly stated my opposition to factory farming conditions of animals. Laying fowls should not be subjected to lives of extreme misery. Animal Liberation describes the harrowing life of a chicken in a battery cage: They are crammed into tiny spaces for all their lives where they cannot act out their natural instincts—to spread their wings, scratch the dirt, socialise, or search for food. The cages are in huge sheds with artificial lighting set to stimulate egg production. Most hens have osteoporosis and fractures by the time they are slaughtered due to lack of exercise.

In January 2008 the Government increased the minimum size of cages for battery hen facilities from 450 square centimetres to 550 square centimetres. While this could be seen as a positive move, the change is only miniscule. The organisation Voiceless points out that the extra space is similar in size to an average beer coaster or passport. I share the concern of animal welfare groups that this increase will not really improve animal welfare but will make it more difficult to phase out factory farming conditions in the long term. Factory farms will be forced to upgrade their cages to the new requirements, making it less likely that future governments will support a phase-out, given that the industry will have invested in new cages.

All countries in the European Union will have phased out battery cages by 2012 and this is the direction we should be taking. There is no need to institutionalise animals in appalling conditions. Factory farming only saves the consumer a few cents in comparison with more humane ways to rear animals. The free-range and organic markets are growing as people become more aware of how their eggs are produced. I welcome the announcement by Woolworths that it will reduce the number of caged eggs it sells, including through its home brand. I believe this reflects a change in what the consumer wants.

Catering at City of Sydney community and civic functions now includes free-range eggs. We require caterers to use food products that are cruelty free, as well as locally produced or organic, sustainable or from Fairtrade sources. Again I call on the Government to establish a plan to phase out factory farming methods, with assistance for farmers, in support of more humane ways to rear animals.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [5.10 p.m.]: I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009. I agree with the concerns of the member for Sydney about the current treatment of fowls in cages. Longer term we should look towards free range to allow a proper level of animal welfare. However, I disagree with her view not to support the legislation because I believe there should be some incremental improvement in the conditions of the relevant fowls. I emphasise that I agree with the member for Sydney that we should move down the path, along with the European Union, of doing away with factory farming of fowls.

Law enforcement is an important issue in today's society. Enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in New South Wales is a particular aspect of law enforcement. It is particular because, while police play an important part, much of the law enforcement under the Act is provided by two dedicated charitable organisations. These organisations are the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] and the New South Wales Animal Welfare League. Under section 348 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the Minister for Primary Industries approves both of these organisations to enforce the provisions of the Act.

It should be noted that Industry and Investment NSW is responsible for the administration of the Act but it does not have an enforcement role. These two charitable organisations have inspectorates that carry out their compliance and enforcement duties. The inspectors come from diverse backgrounds. They may formerly have been police or have worked in occupations such as defence, wildlife care, veterinary nursing, zoo keeping, farming or local government. Their backgrounds are often helpful in their animal welfare compliance work. The inspectors can remove animals from owners who are cruel, neglectful or indifferent to their pets' sufferings. Further, they have extensive investigative and compliance powers under the Act.

These include the power to enter private premises, seize property and make arrests. They can also lay charges, with penalties involving significant terms of imprisonment, and prosecute offences in the courts. In their daily work inspectors investigate complaints about all types of animals in all kinds of situations. For instance, in 2007-08 the RSPCA and Animal Welfare League inspectors inquired into almost 14,000 complaints of animal ill treatment. As well as complaints about pets, inspectors investigate areas such as pet shops, the treatment of animals in saleyards, the suffering of farm animals during drought and those who intentionally hurt animals. Following their investigative work inspectors, as well as the police, can take action in addition to commencing proceedings. They may provide advice on appropriate care, issue official warnings, give directions to address welfare concerns or issue infringement notices.

The RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League and the police prosecute owners who treat animals cruelly. The RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League laid 835 charges in 2007-08 in addition to their other enforcement actions. It is vital that the legislation makes an inspector's job as easy as possible. The bill therefore proposes an important amendment relating to failure to comply with an inspector's notice. If an RSPCA inspector is satisfied that a person is in breach of the Act or the regulation relating to the care of an animal the inspector can issue a notice. The notice spells out the actions that a person must take for the care of the animal to avoid any further contravention of the legislation.

Currently there is no penalty for not complying with an inspector's notice. To some, this may give the impression that a notice can simply be ignored. The bill introduces a provision that will make failing to comply with an inspector's notice an offence, subject to a maximum penalty of $2,750. This provision is required as part of the commitment made by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council to standardise animal welfare legislation in all jurisdictions. Other States already have offences for failure to comply with notices or orders, and New South Wales legislation needs to be brought into line. Creating an offence for failing to comply with a notice ensures that people understand the seriousness of an order issued by an enforcement agency and the need for them to comply with it. It is certainly not something to be ignored. Again I emphasise that animal cruelty in the area of caged fowls and factory production needs to be addressed in the longer term. However, this legislation is a step in the right direction and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [5.15 p.m.]: Tonight I speak briefly on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009. I note that the object of the bill is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalties that may be imposed for offences under the regulations relating to animal trade and the confinement or use of laying fowl for commercial egg production, and to make it an offence to fail to comply with a notice issued by an inspector in relation to an animal.

The member for Coogee said that even though an inspector might come onto a property the farmer does not have to comply with any directions. I find that unusual, but I assume that is correct. Opposition members will not oppose the bill because the present penalties are a little meaningless and, therefore, we support the increased penalties. It has been noted that some producers do not comply with the regulations introduced in 2007. If they receive an infringement notice they seem to regard the small fine as part of the cost of running the business. Therefore, we support the increased penalties.

However, I note that most responsible larger producers comply with the new regulations with respect to cages, the amount of feeding and watering space, and the design of doors. These measures are a great improvement on the days when I was in poultry production and when the member for Mount Druitt was the Minister for Agriculture. Many producers in the western areas of Sydney who do not comply with the new regulations are just hanging on so that they can get a few more years out of their cages before selling the land off for subdivision. Probably a few small producers scattered throughout the State are in a similar situation: they are hanging on as long as they can before giving it away, leaving the business to those prepared to invest. Nowadays this is a high-investment business. Putting birds into appropriate cages requires significant investment compared with the old days when cages were put in a shed, some without even having walls.

We have come a long way. I will demonstrate the way birds are looked after in the present system. When I first started poultry farming in Sydney each of my birds laid about 160 eggs per year. By the time I gave it away just on 10 years ago—and I assume there has been a little improvement since then—those same birds, through better housing, nutrition and genetics, were laying over 300 eggs per year. People talk about cruelty to animals but I do not think that is the case with hens. Anyone with animals knows they must be looked after in order to get optimum production out of them, whether it is a cow in a paddock or a bird in a cage. I note that the member for Sydney referred to birds being subjected to artificial lighting, but I remind her that birds generally are under that lighting 16 hours a day.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Orange has the call. Members will listen to him in silence and observe the words of wisdom he is about to offer the House.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER: I agree with the member for Sydney that the birds are subjected to a form of artificial lighting but, as I said, they are on 16 –hours a day. I remind the member that at the peak of summer, in around December, we have daylight for about 15½ hours in any event. Does the member for Sydney expect us artificially to darken the sheds so that the birds do not have 15½ hours of normal daylight? As a former producer I respect the RSPCA's perspective that, whilst it is not over the moon, so to speak, about putting birds in cages, it recognises that it is an economic reality. That is in contrast with the position of Animal Liberation—that little group of fanatics that gutlessly invaded my farm at half past three in the morning not long after I became the member for Orange. The gutless Sydney Morning Herald reporter who accompanied them wanted a comment from me at half past three in the afternoon after he got back into his bunker at the newspaper's offices. However, I will not talk about that today. Suffice it to say that I was found to comply with all the conditions at the time, and the conditions these days are even better than they were then.

With regard to our supporting a modern poultry industry where birds are kept in cages, I believe the public will make the choice as to when that comes to an end. I do not believe it needs legislation. If the general public are flocking to free-range and barnyard eggs—as some people tend to exaggerate, I believe—Woolworths will provide more space on its shelves for free-range eggs. But the vast majority of people in these tough economic times want a quality product for the least amount of money at the checkout. So we should let the public make a choice.

Recently I was talking to one of the major producers of free-range eggs in New South Wales. He is building a rather large complex for free-range eggs, in responding to his customers, the retailers, who want free-range eggs. However, the council has put 82 conditions on that development. Some of those conditions are to do with the widening of the road, and so on, but many of them are to do with animal welfare. We all travel along rural roads from time to time and we see a little hand-painted sign stating, "Free-range eggs". The small producers who produce those free-range eggs are not subject to any conditions. No-one knows how old the eggs are. We often hear of complaints that the eggs have blood spots in them, and that the eggs have gone past their use-by date. As I said, no conditions are placed on those small producers; whereas the major producers can have conditions put on them, whether it is by their local council or by this Parliament, when they are producing a quality product. As I said, we should let the public make the decision about what products they purchase.

I note that the Australian Egg Corporation supports the legislation. One would suspect that the corporation, as a responsible body representing producers throughout Australia, would support it. The member for Sydney spoke about countries in the European Union [EU] banning battery cages by 2012. However, we will find that countries that are not part of the European Union will start exporting cheaper eggs into the EU, simply because countries that do not have the regulations of the EU will be able to produce eggs more cheaply. If it were viable to do so and Australia were not so isolated cheaper eggs would be coming into Australia from countries that do not have regulations with regard to health issues, cage size, or anything to do with improving animal welfare. Whilst the member for Sydney might sprout about the fact that we need to follow the EU's example, I guarantee that if that were to happen we would start getting cheap imports produced without the regulations regarding health issues and cage size management that exist in Australia.

As I said, the Opposition supports the legislation. It is a good measure, because the current penalties are far too low. However, I am totally against banning cages. As I said, we should let the public make up its mind on that aspect. As I said, a major producer is moving that way because of demand from the shops he serves. If he gets more demand he will put in another shed. But in the meantime we should let industry sort itself out. The RSPCA will keep a check on the errant producers that are simply giving a bad name to all the producers that are producing a quality product as cheaply as possible under very good conditions. As I said earlier, so far as I can see the bird death rate is falling, and egg production is continually increasing through better management, better shedding, better genetics and better food, which is an indication that the birds are not suffering. We are responding to the public, who want a quality product at the lowest possible price. I support the bill.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.25 p.m.]: I want to make a few comments about the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009 which, as has been said by a number of members, increases the maximum penalty for offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in relation to caged birds and egg production. I will not repeat the overview of the bill. The member for Orange, a former egg producer, is very familiar with the history of the industry. I know that as somewhat of an expert in the industry he would be able to speak about how the industry has evolved over the last 20-odd years. Mr Acting-Speaker, your predecessor Fred Caterson spoke with me on the back of a truck near Schofields on one occasion about opposing the deregulation of the egg industry at that time. The issue of cage egg production has haunted the industry, so to speak, for certainly more than 20 years—almost since the time that I have been in this place.

With regard to the issue raised by the member for Sydney, we should all have sympathy for the plight of animals in intensive industries. I cannot in any way say that putting animals in these cages—whether they are 450 or 550 square centimetres, or the 750 square centimetre cages that will possibly come into Europe—will make the life of laying hens a happy one. It is obviously something to which we all turn a blind eye, I suppose, when we buy our products. The same would apply to cattle in feedlots, the pig industry, even the relatively new rabbit industry, and so on. What we can do is to try to make the plight of those animals a little better.

The industry, whilst firstly vehemently opposing deregulation and then opposing cage egg production, did come to the party over the last 10 years or so. Reference has been made to the fact that the new cage sizes were flagged in about 1988 during an Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand meeting, and the issue was debated during a number of meetings. The Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture, David Llewellyn, tried to push for the European Economic Union type of furnished cages or boxes to be introduced. I opposed that—not for any sort of light reasons. Tasmania has a small egg-producing industry, whereas the New South Wales egg-producing industry accounts for somewhere between one-third and 40 per cent of national egg production. However, we brought in the new cage sizes with the cooperation of the industry.

We need to recognise that no State Government alone can do away with cage egg production; it is not possible. Hypothetically, if we did it in New South Wales the whole industry would move to our neighbouring States. As the member for Orange highlighted—this will probably apply in Europe—New South Wales would have a very small egg-producing industry and all egg production would be supplied by the other States. All the States are concerned about the issue. Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have lobbied on the issue and taken up the animal welfare cause. We need to exercise a bit of common sense here and recognise that the industry has given ground quite considerably in this area. We are simply talking about the cage sizes of 450 to 550 square centimetres. As the member for Orange indicated, in addition to the larger cages, the very sad life of laying hens has been improved by the changes to watering and feeding facilities, ventilation of sheds and diet.

Since 1995 the Government has taken the position not to be prescriptive and outlaw the smaller cages but to let the buying public decide. Parts of the industry have diversified into free range, barn laying and so on. I do not have the exact figures but I recall claims that egg production had risen by about 10 per cent—and by considerably more these days. People in supermarkets have to pay more for these products but they can vote with their feet in deciding whether to buy free-range products. People should realise that free-range eggs are not necessarily healthier eggs—some people argue to the contrary—or that the life of free-range poultry is happier. Free-range chickens are subject to predators and weather conditions and their death rate is not much better than that of caged chickens.

The Government also took into account the high cost the industry would have to bear in adopting the changed cage sizes. That is why in 1998 all State governments agreed to a 10-year lead time to introduce the changes. That was a generous amount of time for the industry to deal with the extensive cost of restructuring the industry. Nearly all the major players are now complying, but if the Government does not crack down on the producers who are not complying they will be playing into the hands of animal welfare groups by giving more justification for the ending of caged egg production. That would not be to the benefit of the consumer or to the industry.

Many improvements have been made overall to animal welfare in caged egg production. I have no doubt that government, organisations such as the RSPCA and the industry will continue to work to make the life of laying hens better. Progress is being made and the industry is covering a considerable amount of the cost in making the changes. If we do not have compliance with the new regulations for cage sizes the people not complying will place more pressure on the industry and give animal welfare groups, particularly the more radical groups, evidence to use as to why there should not be caged egg production in this country. I thank all members for their contributions to this debate.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.32 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contributions to the debate by the member for Orange and the member for Mount Druitt. Both members spoke from different perspectives. The member for Orange was a chicken producer. Under the watch of the member for Mount Druitt, as the responsible Minister at the time, significant changes were made to the regulation of the chicken industry to meet the future prevention of cruelty to animal requirements. The object of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalties that may be imposed for offences under the regulations relating to animal trades and the confinement or use of laying fowls for commercial egg production, and to make it an offence to fail to comply with a notice issued by an inspector in relation to an animal.

I have visited chicken meat factories and observed their processes, which was a confronting experience. I have also had the opportunity to visit laying hen farms and observed their processes. Any reasonable person who saw the processes 10 years ago would realise that that was cruelty to animals. In the end the consumer will decide because there is a significant difference in cost between cage eggs, free-range eggs and organic eggs. A lot of the descriptions contained in the bill can be challenged, for example, the meaning of free-range eggs and organic eggs, and other aspects amounting to marketing points for sale in the chicken industry.

I recently visited a free-range chicken farm. The difference from what I saw 10 years ago was unbelievable. Chickens are not kept in cages anymore; they are kept in laying areas, which are significantly bigger than what the cage areas were. The chickens were rotated on a large area of something like five hectares. The chickens acted almost like trained animals. The chickens know when the shutters come up that it is time to go out and wander around and when the shutters come down it is time to go back to the laying area. In addition, there was a considerable improvement in the water and food supply and in general maintenance of the hygiene of the laying sheds. Australian manufacturers have responded to the challenge and specific machinery has been developed to harvest the eggs in these new circumstances.

As a consumer I have learnt the different varieties of eggs. I recommend that most people should buy the different types of eggs to assess the difference in quality and price. The matter has been managed well but because these are medium-sized businesses that are labour intensive, with associated costs, it is also a highly competitive area. The change will not be easy and the costs could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of business. The phasing in of the changes recognises the needs and the financial challenges associated with this industry. I support the bill as it reflects the changes in the values of society and what the public wants from the chicken industry.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Lismore, the member for Coogee, the member for Upper Hunter, the member for Mount Druitt and the member for The Entrance for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I also take this opportunity to recognise all of the people involved in the activities of animal welfare organisations. Their dedicated work is essential for the maintenance of high animal welfare standards in New South Wales. In particular, I recognise and thank those officers of the RSPCA and Animal Welfare League who conduct the necessary enforcement activities under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2009 introduces a number of important reforms to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. In particular, the bill will improve the welfare of caged layer hens by allowing increased maximum penalties for breaches of the layer hen cage regulations. The amendments will also allow higher penalties for breaches of the animal trades codes of practice, which currently apply to other animal trades such as pet shops, and in future will also be made for other livestock. The bill also seeks to create an offence for failing to comply with a notice issued by an inspector under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The amendments will underpin the standards in place to safeguard the welfare of commercially kept animals in New South Wales.

The national standards for cage sizes came into effect nationally on 1 January 2008—almost two years ago. About 80 per cent of egg producers in this State are now complying with that national framework. It is not fair that the producers who have already invested heavily in meeting the new standards should be disadvantaged in the marketplace by those who refuse to move forward. This animal welfare issue was first raised in the mid 1990s. Industry has had a long time to adjust to the new cage sizes and to upgrade its equipment. The RSPCA and the department are responsible for enforcing animal welfare requirements under the Act, particularly in relation to cage sizes. Twenty months later it is not surprising that the RSPCA has taken action against some non-complying egg producers. The Government does not propose to tell the RSPCA, an independent and greatly respected organisation in this State, what it should or should not be doing.

The industry has undertaken substantial reinvestment in recent years and the new cage egg system has improved the health, hygiene and welfare of birds. Currently, 90 per cent of eggs bought in New South Wales are cage-laid eggs, for the simple reason that they are much cheaper than the free range, barn laid or organic alternatives. The majority of Australian consumers buy eggs based purely on price, and there is a significant cost difference between the price of free range and cage eggs. Cage eggs are an important source of affordable nutrition for Australian families and our cage egg producers have worked hard to provide a safe source of eggs for all Australians to enjoy.

New South Wales legislation has to be brought into line with that of other States, which have offences for failure to comply with notices or orders. Currently in New South Wales an inspector who is satisfied that a person is in breach of the Act or the regulations relating to the care of an animal can issue a notice. The notice spells out the actions that a person must take for the care of the animal to avoid any further contravention of the legislation. However, in New South Wales there is currently no penalty for not complying with an inspector's notice.

As to the issue raised by the member for Sydney, calls for a ban on caged layer hens illustrate a failure to understand the impacts of such an approach. Essentially, this action would destroy the majority of the egg industry in New South Wales. It also would seriously disadvantage New South Wales consumers. Currently, 90 per cent of eggs bought in New South Wales are cage-laid eggs, for the simple reason that they are much cheaper than their free range, barn laid or organic alternatives. The bottom line is it is up to consumers to decide which eggs they are most comfortable buying. It is important that all families, not just wealthy families, are able to afford eggs.

Scientific evidence shows that eggs are a highly nutritious food and a particularly good source of protein that can be included in the diet of healthy Australians. Cage production systems allow for good disease control, lower mortality rates, increased monitoring of birds, and reduced risk of damage attributed to aggression by other birds, such as feather pecking. It is important to note that the so-called ban on battery cages in the European Union is not a complete ban on cages. Larger, furnished cages still will be allowed. Furnished cages are fitted with nest boxes, scratch pads and perches. The New South Wales Government will continue to work closely with the egg industry to ensure practical measures are adopted that address important animal welfare issues but do not disadvantage New South Wales egg consumers.

The animal trades codes of practice come under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulation. The purpose of these codes is to protect animals that are used or kept for commercial purposes—for example, animals associated with pet shops, dog and cat breeding, security dogs and animals in boarding establishments. For equity reasons, it is appropriate that the penalties for breaching the codes are consistent with the penalties under the regulation for layer hen cages. This is timely and important legislation. This bill will deliver greater protection for industry and improved animal welfare outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.