Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It makes eminently sound sense that there are common food standards across the Tasman. Your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, and I are members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and we recently brought down a report into harmonisation of laws within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand. It seems to me that, in 2007, it makes sense to treat the Australian states and New Zealand as entities which have a lot in common. The logic for having harmonised food standards is absolutely indisputable, just as, in my view, the argument for having harmonised laws in many other areas is eminently desirable. In fact, the committee recommended that there ought to be an ongoing, ever-closer sense of integration between the two countries, and it recommended a joint currency. We even looked at the possibility of a political union between Australia and New Zealand.

When I look at what is happening in the area of food standards, it is clear that, despite the fact that integration has not gone as far as I personally and, for that matter, as the committee would like to see, in 2007 governments across the Tasman and governments around Australia are aware that, regardless of where you go to buy your food and regardless of where you live, food standards ought to be uniform where possible. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 facilitates the introduction of an improved process through which food authorities in Australia and New Zealand are able to develop common food regulatory measures and improve the system in which these food standards operate. It is a no-brainer to appreciate that the No. 1 aim of these regulations is to ensure that the health of residents, both within Australia and across the Tasman, is protected and, in particular, protected from conditions which may eventuate as a result of unacceptable and wrong handling of food items.

The bill modifies the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, which established the food regulatory system of Australia and New Zealand. It has the following goals: to ensure high consumer confidence in the quality and safety of the food items that are produced in Australia and New Zealand, as well as those foods that are processed in either of the countries. The safety of food is something that we all take for granted. We do not really expect that, when we go into a supermarket to buy food, as we all do, we are going to buy something that is defective. I suppose we do not very often buy food that is defective because of the food standards arrangements within Australia and across the Tasman. We therefore assume that, when we buy something, it is safe to eat and certainly will not make us ill.

To ensure this level of safety, there is a complete regime working behind the scenes. The Food Standards Australia Act 1991 is one of the official instruments or, I suppose, legislative necessities which help bring this food safety to reality. Happily, it is not a regular occurrence, but occasionally there are still food items that are not safe to eat. The fact that that occurs indicates that this legislation is necessary. It is important to make sure that the food standards regulations and laws remain modern and up-to-date and that they keep up with the ongoing developments in food processing and production.

The bill and the act also aim to ensure that the objectives of a safe and effective regulatory system, as mentioned earlier, are able to be achieved, and that they are able to be achieved with confidence. While it is important that such a framework exists to ensure the quality and safety of food items, it is also vital that the regulatory framework supports the commercial sides of the production, distribution and, for that matter, sale of food items. On the other hand, it would be counterproductive to have a safety regime that is so difficult and rigid and impossible to adhere to that commercial viability suffers. So, as in so many other areas, this bill and the principal act seek to obtain an appropriate balance.

The act also aims to ensure that there is enough information on food items so that consumers are able to make informed and intelligent decisions about their food purchases. Issues such as fat and sodium content, for example, are used by many consumers to make a choice amongst various food items available. The act also aims to establish common and consistent rules governing food production, processing and distribution to promote further efficiencies in the industry within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand.

While the system has proven to have many strengths, experiences of those operating within the system from 2002 have identified room for improvement, and that is why this bill contains a number of initiatives to improve the standards and the operation of the system. This bill reforms the assessment and consultation process; it harmonises as far as possible the processes for the assessment of applications and proposals; it allows for alignment of the policy setting process of the council and the standard development and approval process of Food Standards Australia New Zealand; it aligns the processes for setting maximum residue limits of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the FSANZ; it recognises the potential need to develop urgent standards due to unforeseen negative impacts on trade; it removes the ability of the council to request a second review while maintaining appropriate oversight of standards by the council—and this amendment is subject to changes to the food treaty between Australia and New Zealand; and it creates a process for expert scientific assessment of future high-level health claims. The later commencement of this provision allows time for finalisation of the Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard currently under development. As with so many other items of legislation, there are a number of other technical amendments.

There has been wide consultation with stakeholders in relation to this legislation, which has received majority support—fairly strong support, in fact—from most of those stakeholders. I am pleased that the opposition has agreed to support this bill. This bill makes sound common sense and I am particularly pleased to be able to commend it to the chamber.

See this speech in context