Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a whole range of grievances that I want to raise tonight. There are so many that I am not sure where to start. Some are local and some are international. First of all, I am aggrieved that Rural Reporter has been taken off the ABC radio in Lismore. I have a long letter explaining how the area is still going to be covered from Port Macquarie et cetera, but I am not sure that that can happen in practice, and that aggrieves me because a lot of rural people—not just farmers but particularly farmers—rely on that. Having a dedicated Rural Reporter program every morning is something that we have had for a long, long time. So that is one of the things that aggrieve me.

I am also aggrieved—and I have spoken about it in this place before—that Telstra is axing 108 jobs out of its Grafton business call centre, one of the best call centres. They say the jobs are going to Melbourne and to Brisbane. You can imagine how aggrieved I feel, as a rural resident, about that going to the big city. I am not even sure they are going there. That is an ongoing issue.

I am also aggrieved about all the people who want to get their hands on the Clarence River. You might have heard that there is a lot of debate about the Murray-Darling Basin. To be sure there is a lot of work to be done there, but people have waxed and waned for years about wanting to divert the Clarence, take it overland and do all sorts of things to get water out of it. I have spoken before but it does not go away. People keep talking about it here. What we say in the Clarence Valley is: not a drop. It was the Daily Examiner that coined that phrase. There are stickers everywhere: not a drop. I note in today’s Daily Examiner that the Clarence Valley Council meeting last night again registered their strong opposition to plans to divert water from the Clarence River catchment. The mayor, Councillor Richie Williamson, said:

The result of any crazy scheme to divert the Clarence would be that instead of having one river system that is on its knees environmentally, socially and economically (the Murray-Darling) you would instead have two systems in a similar state.

It is one of those options that I know will go before the parliament, but it is just really silly to be looking at that system.

Another issue in my local area—and particularly with families and mothers—is junk food and, pertinently, junk food advertising aimed at our children. There is a bombardment of advertising for junk food. Wouldn’t it be lovely to see a bombardment of advertising for really healthy food, the foods that we need every day? Instead it is just junk food ad after junk food ad after junk food ad—lots of ads. It is everywhere you go. I know it has received lots of coverage in the media and in various newspapers and on TV as well. One of the things that I always find amusing is that the advertising companies always say they have research that shows that it really does not have a great impact on the take-up of children buying it or their parents buying it for them. Why do they do it? Why do they spend millions on advertising that does not work? That is just absolute nonsense—nonsensical. It does not make sense. We know that we are all influenced by the power of the media and particularly advertising. You know that when you have heard a song and it stays in your head all day. That happens to all of us—you cannot stop singing or thinking the last line you heard. That happens with our children as well. You have mums and dads and families trying to promote healthy eating and make sure that the kids eat those foods, yet they have to contend with this absolute bombardment, because that is all that they have.

Sticking with what happens with children—our kids—there is the issue not only of the junk food but also of the poisons and colourings that are put in food. We have seen recently that Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ, along with its American counterpart, the Food and Drug Administration, are looking at the findings of some research that was conducted by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. That is a US body that recommended common colours be banned. Think of all the foods. I am sure you go to the supermarket to do your shopping, Mr Deputy Speaker, and when you are there I know that you would see all of those foods and all of those wonderful bright colours. When you walk past a doughnut—not that I like doughnuts—you can look at all that bright colouring. A lot of us spend time in airports and we see lots of doughnuts with pink, green and yellow colouring. We know that for some children those colours really affect their behaviour. That is known. There is documentation about that. How can this stuff be good for you? I am not telling adults what they should or should not eat but in terms of our kids it really is a problem. There is always the research, and this particular research is also saying that there may be a link to cancer. I say that with some degree of hesitation, because we read headlines in the paper telling us that nearly everything we do, eat or look at can be linked to some ill health or cancer. But the principle here has to be the precautionary principle—we are talking about our kids’ health. If in doubt, we have to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to keep them safe. I am not saying that we should bring them up just on carrots and celery alone, but they need a healthy diet.

Something else that aggrieves me and, I know, a lot of parents, and it is something that is a matter of great debate in the community, is the violence in lyrics and games, and coming through phones, subjecting children to lots of violence. Again, I read research from people who have done studies on it and they talk about the impact that it can have on children’s cognition when they are exposed to that on a regular basis. Given that our children do watch a lot of television and do have a lot of games and access to phones—we live in a sort of techno-connected world—there is even more of that bombardment coming through. We cannot ban everything but we really have to debate these issues more and look for solutions. The people who make these things have to be more responsible, as advertisers do. Everybody is saying that we have to legislate everything—and yes, there is a place for legislation; that is absolutely clear—but there has to be some responsibility put back on others who make these things and make money out of them.

Another issue that has come up in my electorate is the issue of coal seam gas. I know that is erupting all over Australia and it is hard to work out what is fact and what is fiction in the debate, but there are certainly issues raised around the issue of fracking. Fracking is not a new thing; it is a rather old process but there is clearly—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

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

Is the member for Page willing to give way?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, with pleasure.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. You made comments about food additives and their impact on children. Is there an intention by you to take that up with Minister Roxon so that the Australian Health Ministers Council can look at a direction with respect to the issues you raise?

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to the honourable member, everything I raise in parliament I have either taken up or do take up, but it is on the agenda as well. It is a serious issue.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Allow me to congratulate both honourable members because this chamber is supposed to be more spontaneous and I think this is a good procedure.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have 15 seconds for fracking. It is clearly one of those issues where we need scientists and informed debate about it so that we know what the impacts are, but it is certainly a process we are worried about.