Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commence my contribution to the debate by recognising the fine role the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing has played. I have truly enjoyed working with him on all the inquiries that the committee has undertaken. He is a fine chairman and I feel privileged to have been a member of a committee which he has chaired. I also recognise the fine work of the wonderful Pauline Brown, who is sitting over there with her head bent! Her research powers and her ability to put together a report are second to none. She has excellent skills. I think the parliament is very lucky to have in its employ someone of her calibre. I note the number of submissions that the committee received: 479 submissions is an enormous number of submissions for a committee to receive on any inquiry that it undertakes. It showed us that this is an issue about which there is a lot of passion and it is something people care very deeply about.

I would like to pick up on a couple of the recommendations and then spend the majority of my contribution looking at chapter 8, which relates to the impact of breastmilk substitutes, the MAIF agreement, Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula agreement, and the WHO code, the International Code of Marketing of Breat-milk Substitutes, which are the two different codes that control the supply of breastmilk substitutes. It is also very important to note recommendation 10, which the previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, referred to. I should have said at the beginning of my speech that I enjoyed working with all members of the committee. Those who have spoken to date—and the member for Ballarat will be speaking a little later—were real contributors to this report. I now turn to recommendation No. 10:

That the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate take the appropriate measures to enable the formal accreditation by the Australian Breastfeeding Association of Parliament House as a Breastfeeding Friendly Workplace.

I raised this question with the Speaker on the last sitting day and asked him to report back to me on it. I was extremely disappointed with the reaction—not from my honourable friends opposite—from some of the government members, because it showed a total lack of understanding of this issue. This is about parliament being a role model for the rest of Australia. If we cannot put in place the right sorts of procedures then how can we ask employers in other areas to do so? I felt that that was a very important recommendation. I would ask government members to ensure that their ministers and other people who are responsible for decisions in this area know just how important it is. I notice that the member for Canning is coming back into the room. When I raised that question, he was one of the members who laughed. The recommendation is in relation to Parliament House becoming a recognised and accredited breastfeeding friendly workplace. There is a very important role for this parliament to play. But that is enough said on that.

I would now like to turn to chapter 8 of the report, which deals with an issue of very great importance and one which can make a real difference to improving the rates of breastfeeding in Australia. It also goes to the way that formula is marketed in Australia. Currently in Australia we have the MAIF code of practice, which is voluntarily agreed to by the manufacturers of infant formulas. The first weakness of that voluntary code of conduct is that not all manufacturers have to sign up to it. Those manufacturers that sign up to it commit to it and must abide by it, but if a manufacturer chooses not to sign up to that code of practice there is absolutely no reason why they cannot behave in whatever manner they would like to. I do not think that is good enough. It is very important that women get the correct information about breastfeeding. It is very important that women get the support that they need in relation to breastfeeding and that they are not misled by any side issues.

The MAIF code is administered by APMAIF, the Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula. APMAIF looks at complaints that are lodged with it in relation to breaches of MAIF. Members may be very surprised to learn that APMAIF have not submitted a report to parliament since 2005. We had the CEO of APMAIF come and talk to our committee, and I think I can say without any reservation that every member of our committee felt that the penalty for a manufacturer that breached the code of practice would be something like being hit with a wet lettuce leaf. The representatives who came before the committee quite frankly did not understand what it was all about. If a breach occurred, the penalty was to be named in the report tabled in parliament. If the reports are not tabled in parliament, tell me—please help me understand—how that penalty amounts to anything whatsoever. When the representative from MAIF left the committee hearing, I thought he might have handed in his resignation because he could not in any way justify the action of that panel.

The WHO code, which Australia was one of the first countries to sign up to, was not adopted by the Australian parliament. In 1992 the MAIF code was agreed to. The WHO code is a minimum standard and it covers both the manufacturers and the retailers. I think the fact that the retailers are not covered by the MAIF code is of great concern. The retailers can display and promote infant formula in whatever way they choose, whilst under the WHO code in other countries that is not the case. The handing out of samples to medical professionals is another thing that infant formula manufacturers can do. In countries that are covered by the WHO code that is not the case. The WHO code applies to products such as breakfast cereals, infant meals and drinks, but those are not covered by the MAIF code. On most of these foods it is recommended that the infant is four to six months old. The standard is that babies should be exclusively fed by breastmilk or nonsolids until they are six months old. So just the labelling of these products breaches the best practice for caring for, feeding and providing nutrition to young babies.

The table set out on page 135 of the committee’s report details very poignantly the contrast between the international WHO code and the rather flawed code that we have in Australia. Our committee strongly recommended that we adopt the international WHO code. The chair played a very strong part in us doing that. I would have been a little more timid in the recommendation, even though I believed passionately that that was the way to go.

When we consider the issue of the WHO code and the MAIF agreement, if the government does not accept signing up to the WHO code, we at least have to have a fallback position. I think that the minimum fallback position is that, if formula manufacturers are to sell their products in Australia, they must be a signatory to the MAIF agreement. Even if you have one group of infant formula manufacturers that are, to some degree, trying to act responsibly—even if they do not go as far as I or our committee believe they should—we need to make sure that every single manufacturer signs up to that. The manufacturers are bound by the MAIF agreement but I truly believe that there needs to be some action taken to bring the retailers under the MAIF agreement. Otherwise, the area is not being covered properly.

I notice that the time for this debate is about to expire. I would refer members to the report. I believe there are a number of really worthwhile recommendations, like those addressing the GST on lactation aids, the baby-friendly hospitals and all those other issues that have been identified in this committee report. Once again, I thank the chair for the role that he has played in the development of this report.

Debate (on motion by Mr Randall) adjourned.

See this speech in context