Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 seeks to implement a reform agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. Specifically, these amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 seek the recognition by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, residue risk assessment and the promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—the food code. What that means is a reduction of duplication. At present, we have two bodies. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority sets maximum residue limits and has a prescribed use for using pesticides specifically, so that they can be used in a safe way on crops. But in order for food to enter the food supply, it is Food Standards Australia New Zealand that actually sets what might be different maximum residue limits.

There is a compliance cost associated with this for primary producers. This is a very sensible reform. The present situation is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA prescribe separate limits on agriculture veterinary chemical residues in food. So where a primary producer may use a particular chemical product on their crops and livestock in accordance with the relevant APVMA product registration or permit, they might not legally be able to sell the treated produce where there is no corresponding MRL in the food code preventing its sale. So this bill streamlines the current regulatory process. It reduces the regulation on business by government and removes duplication.

These reforms stem from a Howard government initiative designed to reduce red tape on business. In 2005, a task force was established to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Commonwealth government regulation. Its final report recommended that COAG should establish a high-level task force to develop an integrated national chemicals policy. At the time, the coalition recognised that there were overlaps and inconsistencies in a number of regulatory hotspots, in particular chemicals and plastics.

The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry into chemicals and plastics regulation. They released an interim report which recommended, among other things, avoiding duplication of the setting of MRLs by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the APVMA by enabling the MRLs which are established by the APVMA to be automatically incorporated into the food code.

This Productivity Commission recommendation was adopted by COAG on 3 July 2008. The coalition supports this bill. It will be welcomed by primary producers and it will be welcomed by groups such as the National Farmers Federation, by pastoralists and by graziers associations. Our only question is: why has it taken two years to get to this point of actually presenting the legislation to parliament? Why two years after a no-brainer? The Productivity Commission said, ‘This can be done quickly,’ and COAG agreed, yet it has taken two years to get to this point. Perhaps this is one of the bills which were slowed up when Kevin Rudd was in his control freak phase. The government needs to explain why it has delayed two years in implementing these reforms.

This bill was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament and was referred to a Senate committee to allow stakeholders an opportunity to put forward any concerns they may have had, including any public health and safety concerns. Based on the evidence provided during that Senate inquiry, the committee was satisfied that the proposed legislation would not increase the risk to human health or safety. In fact, it was the committee’s opinion that there would be an overall gain as a result of streamlining the current regulatory process.

As it stands now, stakeholders support the legislative change to remove the inconsistencies between those two regulatory bodies with regard to the MRLs. This is about synchronising the two regulatory systems to reduce the regulatory burden on primary producers without any trade-off in human safety. This bill achieves that end. The coalition continues to support improving efficiency of government regulation and reducing red tape on small businesses, in particular primary producers. That is why we support this bill.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010, which I am happy to say is supported by everyone in this parliament. There is no opposition because it is a good bill. It is a flow-on and reduces the regulatory burden on business, ensuring that we remove duplication and administrative burdens where we can and that regulations match what happens in practice, particularly at the farm gate. This bill amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and implements a reform that was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in late 2008. It is really part of a broader agenda which this government has brought forward—that is, a seamless national economy. If we are to compete internationally, if our primary producers are to have every advantage that government can provide, we need to play our part not only by reducing the regulatory burden but by creating a seamless national economy, ensuring that we remove overlaps or duplication across departmental regulations so that what happens in practice is the same as what is needed to happen in public health regulation.

These reforms call for the recognition of domestically grown produce by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to improve the residue risk assessment and promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits to the Food Standards Code. This bill addresses some of the deficiencies in the FSANZ annual reporting requirements and also corrects some minor inconsistencies. The objective of the amendments is to eliminate that duplicate administrative process between FSANZ and APVMA and the conflict in maximum residue limits without compromising public health. Public health is obviously a primary concern but you might have found—without these amendments being brought in to make the necessary changes—that, while herbicides, pesticides or other chemicals a primary producer uses may be legal, they may not meet the food standards requirements, which would mean that farmers might not be able to sell their produce. There is an inconsistency there which needs to be sorted, and it is to be done through these amendments.

The maximum residue limit is the highest concentration of a residue of a particular agricultural or veterinary chemical that is legally permitted in food or animal feed. APVMA sets that maximum residue limit in the course of approving registrations and permits for specific chemical products which reflect the residue resulting from those which would be used on crops or livestock.

The Food Standards Code also includes a corresponding maximum residue limits standard, which reflects the levels permitted in the food that is available for sale. In today’s world where everything is global, it is important that we have the right standards, that they are consistent and match across agencies because there is such availability of produce from different parts not only of the country but of the globe. In the interests of public health, it is important to get those standards right.

Another aim of this reform is to remove a specific time lag which exists between getting any standards gazetted and prescribed and in the promulgation of corresponding maximum residue limits standards into the Food Standards Code. There is a time lag and this can cause some confusion or create a circumstance where a primary producer would use a particular chemical legally only to find that, because of the time lag as the crop matures or  the animals are ready for the lot, they can no longer sell those products, which would be unacceptable. It is in the interests of primary producers that we get the standards right and remove the time lag. This is all done in conjunction with making sure that the standards are of the highest level. This will maintain the current degree of scientific rigour and assessment required before a decision on a maximum residue limits standard may be made, thereby ensuring the protection of public health and safety.

There is a financial impact with these changes. The reform agreed by COAG was done without additional funding, so the funding has to be transferred from one organisation to the next—from Food Standards Australia New Zealand to APVMA. The funding associated with these two functions should be transferred as appropriate and in accordance with the roles each body now plays. The quantum of that funding will be agreed by the ministers of the day.

There are also a range of amendments relating to annual reporting requirements which correct some minor inconsistencies. The need to do this arises simply from the relatively complex amendments made to the FSANZ Act back in mid-2007. This was subsequently identified by the Department of Health and Ageing, which identified a number of gaps. The amendments are required to ensure that there is effective monitoring of the act itself. In terms of timing sensitivities, the reforms should not be delayed any further. We need to resolve a number of legal issues with regard to the respective roles that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA standards play. Dealing with them should be considered urgent now, as we have them before us. Any additional delay would actually create a disadvantage for primary producers. I know that primary producers are waiting for the outcome of these amendments so that they can get on with their business. These are good amendments that do the right thing in streamlining a number of approval processes. The legislation is also about eliminating duplicative regulation and removing the red-tape burden but at the same time not jeopardising the protection of public health in the process. This is about better integration and the very important role that these two regulatory agencies play. I know it is well supported by everybody in this place and I recommend the legislation to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 had its origin in the 42nd Parliament. It has a stated purpose to implement a reform designed to streamline current regulatory processes which create circumstances whereby a primary producer may legally use a particular chemical product on their crops and livestock but may not legally be able to sell the treated produce in the domestic market. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee held an inquiry into the proposed legislation and found that it is expected to improve the efficiency with which the approval of chemical products can occur. I do welcome this bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am very particular about food standards in our country and, indeed, anything we export to other countries. I have spoken many times in this place on the importance of labelling, most recently on Monday, but we must make sure that we are not disadvantaging our producers by creating unnecessary red tape.

Submissions to the Senate committee inquiry noted that the delay between the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority applying to Food Standards Australia New Zealand to include a maximum residue limit in the food code averaged approximately 12 months. CropLife and the Animal Health Alliance informed the committee that their members had experienced waits of up to 18 months. During this time it would be legal for a farmer to use the particular chemical product but not to sell the treated produce. This delay causes significant problems for users of chemical products because a farmer may legally purchase a chemical that has been assessed as safe for use by the APVMA and use that product in accordance with the label directions but ultimately find that he or she is not able to sell their produce because the APVMA determined maximum residue limit is yet to be adopted within the Food Standards Code.

It is important to note that agvet chemicals are used by farmers when needed to protect crops and animals from a wide variety of pests, weeds and diseases. In Australia, agvet chemical products are strictly regulated by state and federal government agencies to protect human health, safety, trade and, of course, the environment—all very important things for us to be doing. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority conduct a rigorous scientific risk assessment on each new agvet chemical product before it can be approved for use in Australia. The assessment process determines whether the agvet chemical product is effective and safe with respect to people, animals and the environment and does not pose a trade risk. As part of this process, the APVMA also approves agvet chemical product labels which contain instructions on how to use the product correctly and safely.

I speak to the many great food producers in the electorate of Pearce. They are broadacre wheat and sheep farmers, market gardeners, large export fruit growers and everything in between. They grow olives, table grapes and wine grapes. A large number of products are grown and produced in the electorate of Pearce. I know my growers are very mindful of the need to protect human health and protect the environment. It is in their interests that they continue to safeguard both human health and the environment.

The member for Kingston, who is in the House today, moved a motion on food labelling on Monday. When speaking to that motion and on many occasions previously I strongly advocated measures to make it easier for Australian food producers to sell their goods. It is now more than ever essential that we as legislators work to make this possible as our food producers have never done it tougher. To add to the usual mix of difficulty for food producers in Australia we now of course have the rising value of the dollar, which for some people is a benefit but for others wishing to export their products in a tough and competitive international marketplace it is not.

A useful illustration of how difficult it is for our food producers is the 2009 cash flow estimates that a farmer in my electorate kindly made available to me. I have mentioned these figures before but they are worth mentioning again. Return rates for local farmers are quite slim. Sometimes they are as little as 3.5 per cent or below. I do not think we would see too many bankers in Australia being prepared to work long hours for such a low return and with all the vagaries of the weather with droughts and so on.

Based on a 5,000-hectare wheat belt cropping and wool property, my constituent calculated a notional $40.84 profit per hectare, but when farmers’ expenses, taxation, repayments and capital expenditure are taken into account, assuming repayments are kept to a minimum, the farmers expect to lose $36.06 per hectare. With such losses continuing over time, local farming is increasingly becoming unsustainable. A number of forces contribute to this worrying outcome. Many of them are not controllable by government, but this amendment bill is certainly one positive measure we can make on behalf of Australia’s primary producers, and every effort should be made to support them where it is safe to do so. Of course, I believe the emphasis in terms of food production should always be on the safety of that food for human consumption.

Consumers have consistently shown a willingness to vote with their wallets in support of local produce that is ethically grown, harvested and manufactured by environmentally conscious producers where such items are easily identified. The public enthusiasm is there. It is now up to government to show its political will and make good on this significant issue.

Safety was covered quite extensively in this Senate committee report. In his submission the Hon. Bob Such MP did not oppose the legislation but did call for the use of chemicals and pesticides to be kept to an absolute minimum and recommended increased provision of information about the use of chemicals on food products. The APVMA, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Department of Health and Ageing were of the opinion that the bill would not result in an increased risk to human health and safety. The APVMA informed the committee that all current dietary exposure measures would remain the same. I think it is important to highlight that for those who may think that this in some way reduces the safety of the food that they consume.

The dietary assessment would be undertaken by APVMA and checked by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, as is currently the case, with FSANZ undertaking its own dietary assessment if needed. Food Standards Australia New Zealand made a similar point in its submission, stating that ‘the bill removes duplication of administrative processes but the scientific assessment required to ensure the safety to human health and the environment remains unchanged’. The code will retain its current structure whereby no chemical residue in food is legal unless there is a relevant prescribed MRL standard in the code. MRLs are specific to the chemical product and to the produce on which the product may be used. The ministerial council will still have the power to request a review of any food standard, including MRLs, and FSANZ will still be responsible for preparing or overseeing the dietary modelling used to determine the appropriateness of an MRL—that is, the maximum residue limits, for those who are not used to the acronyms.

The department of health further noted in their submission that ‘the food code would retain its current structure under which no chemical residues in food would be legal without a relevant approved MRL’. Food Standards Australia New Zealand retains the power to make urgent variations to the food code for the purpose of protecting public health and safety. The ministerial council is also able to request a review of any food standard, including an MRL standard. In more than 10 years of operation, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the ministerial council have never disagreed with an MRL proposed by the APVMA on the basis of public health and safety.

In its conclusion the committee said it was satisfied that the proposed legislation will not increase risks to human health and safety. Given the efficiency gains arising from the streamlining of the approval process and the absence of opposition to the proposed changes, the committee supported strongly the amendment to this legislation. So I think the public can be reassured, and we need in this place to reassure ourselves, that, along with these changes, we are indeed looking after the health of those who might consume these products.

One of the sore points in my electorate a few years ago revolved around current growers who had to meet the most rigorous standards in terms of any chemicals and pesticides they sprayed on their products. They were dismayed to learn that we have products being imported into this country where no such safeguards are required. The food is packaged in another country and then brought here and sold more cheaply than our producers can produce it, because we do require producers to go through a rigorous process. All of that adds to the cost of production, so anything we can do which removes red tape in a safe way has to be welcomed by those of us who represent food producers in our electorates.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I was very interested to read the Senate committee’s report and was reassured that the amendments we are passing in this place today have health and safety as an important keystone in this amending legislation.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I start by thanking those members who have taken part in the debate on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010: the member for Boothby, the member for Oxley and the member for Pearce. I acknowledge the longstanding interest and advocacy by the member for Pearce on the issue of food standards and also her contribution on the notice of motion moved by the member for Kingston on food labelling, which I listened to with interest. I thank you for your contribution to that. I certainly note those contributions as we head into making some decisions once the labelling review is announced and I get a look at it in December.

The amendments to this bill are designed to reduce the level of unnecessarily and poorly designed regulation and its resulting negative impact on business. The bill does implement a reform agreed to by all states and territories through COAG as part of the seamless national economy reform agenda to streamline the process of setting maximum residue limits for chemicals in the Food Standards Code. I also note the bipartisan support from the opposition for this bill.

Specifically, this reform will address the delay and uncertainty for users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, who are typically primary producers, which results in overlapping regulatory responsibilities for setting maximum residue limits of chemicals allowed to be present in food. These overlapping responsibilities mean that there has been a time lag of nine to 12 months—and, unfortunately, in some cases, as the member for Pearce stated, occasionally 18 months—between the APVMA establishing an MRL in relation to an agricultural or veterinary chemical product and when FSANZ is able to effect a corresponding modification into the Food Standards Code. The amendments contained in the bill streamline these processes by establishing the APVMA as the single decision maker for setting MRLs. Under the new system, the APVMA can use a decision on a maximum residue limit taken in the course of approving a chemical product registration or permit application to vary the maximum residue limit standard in the Food Standards Code.

FSANZ, as the scientific experts in food safety, will retain responsibilities for the dietary modelling that the APVMA will rely on to establish safe chemical residue limits. I do note that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this legislation canvassed the issue of food safety and public health and safety extensively and concluded that there was no risk in this legislation at all. I want to thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I think it has brought out a number of issues in terms of primary producers which have been helpful to hear. These amendments do reduce duplicative administrative processes while retaining a no compromise approach to protecting public health and safety. They do demonstrate that the government is committed to identifying and taking action in areas where unnecessary or poorly designed regulation is impeding Australian business but also note the government’s absolute commitment to public health and safety. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.