Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler and the minister in attendance for allowing me to speak now. I rise to support the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Amendments have been made to this bill by the member for Throsby. There is a sense of deja vu about the way that they have approached what is typical in terms of an outdated view with respect to governance and government appointed bodies. It relies on boards being filled by people based on their positions as opposed to their skill and expertise. From that point of view, the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Throsby. The decision to change the nomination process for the FSANZ board was not a decision of the minister. This is a very important point. It was a decision of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which consists of ministers from Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia, ACT, Queensland, Western Australia, my home state of Tasmania, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand.

The member for Throsby might like to reflect on the fact that his Labor colleagues, South Australian minister Jack Snelling, ACT minister Simon Corbell, and Victorian minister Jill Hennessy agreed—not disagreed, but agreed—with the proposed changes. Rather than playing politics with this bill, maybe he should speak to his state colleagues, because I believe that Australians are simply sick of this sort of behaviour. They have had enough of this petty politicking, where there will be some advantage gained or the perception that some advantage will be gained by such activities.

Any changes to this legislation not agreed to by the forum would breach our international obligations under the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand, commonly known as the food treaty, concerning a joint food standards system. To date, throughout the process of drafting this bill New Zealand has been consulted and they have agreed to the changes. Therefore, the actions of those on the other side, and in particular the member for Throsby, are nothing more than grandstanding and playing politics on an issue that is actually very important. I will speak further about why it is important to my state of Tasmania.

In regard to Mr Jones's comments around the Health Star Rating, under the leadership of this government we have so far had 54 companies sign up to the Health Star Rating, and there are over 1,500 products already on the shelves. Just this week we have seen two major companies, Kelloggs and Nestle, reformulate their food because of this government's voluntary scheme. Kelloggs reformulated their recipe for Nutri-Grain—I will not be telling my boys that, because they are keen partakers of it—to go from 2 stars to 4 stars. Nestle reformulated 10 of its snacks and muesli bars, reducing salt by 63 per cent, sugar by 32 per cent and fat by 16 per cent.

Mr Jones also misses the point that phase 2 of the education campaign for the Health Star Rating system ran from June to August and used print, online and out-of-home advertising to continue to raise consumer awareness of the Health Star Rating system and to visually reinforce the campaign message of comparing similarly packaged products. Data suggests that 47 per cent of people are highly likely to use the HSR on a regular basis, which is up from 40 per cent in April 2015. Of those who have seen any of the advertising, almost 40 per cent state that they have used the HSR in-store. Thirty per cent have tried to eat healthier. If there is one thing this was meant to do, it was to change behaviour. On the evidence before us that seems to be occurring.

I am particularly pleased to speak on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill, and the amendments. The bill amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the FSANZ Act, to reflect the change of name of the former Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, and makes amendments relating to the compositional requirements and the appointment processes of the FSANZ board, to which I have alluded, and responded to the amendments that were made by the member for Throsby. It makes other amendments to improve the clarity and operation of this important legislation.

This debate also gives me an opportunity to examine the history of FSANZ's dealings with the application for approval of industrial hemp to be grown for food in Australia. I particularly want to explore why this approval has still not been granted, nearly a decade after the application was first made. It appears to be a case of bureaucratic bungling, some might say—I am on the record publicly as having said that before—which is holding up development of a much needed viable new crop for farmers, like those in my rural and regional electorate of Lyons, in Tasmania. I first raised the subject of industrial hemp not long after being elected to this place. There has been an unacceptably long delay nationally in deciding whether to legalise its cultivation for human consumption. I have made public statements since that time, and as recently as January/February this year, after the forum had met in New Zealand. At that stage producers in my state, in particular, but also in other Australian states and in New Zealand had been campaigning for the development of this industry for more than a decade.

Industrial hemp is already cultivated in Australia, as opposed to medicinal cannabis, just to make that point clear. Industrial hemp is already cultivated in Australia and New Zealand under strict licensing arrangements. It is used to make fibre, textiles, paper and building materials. Members in this place would understand that Tasmania is also the producer of over 40 per cent of the world's legal opiates. From a regulatory point of view, in terms of the dangers that those two products present, I can assure the House that the opiates that are grown in Tasmania are managed very well and are far more dangerous than industrial hemp, which contains very little, if any, active ingredients. The removal of prohibitions on the production of hemp seed and oil products would provide farmers with a greater range of viable markets for a crop that we have known for years grows exceptionally well in the southern regions of Australia and New Zealand.

It would also provide the necessary encouragement to more farmers, who always on the lookout for new opportunities to help make ends meet, to consider growing industrial hemp commercially. I am told that Australia is one of only two countries in the world now who still prohibit the growing of industrial hemp for food consumption. This is against the national backing of the science community and the best advice from leading hemp growers in countries such as Canada. Canada allows the sale and consumption of hemp foods and has done for many years. A licence is required to possess hemp seed or grain to conduct activities such as cultivating, processing, pressing for oil, rendering hemp seed or grain non-viable, importing, exporting and selling—which I think we regard as perfectly reasonable. Food containing hemp is allowed to be sold and consumed in the Netherlands. Italy allows hemp based foods. Austria, Belgium and Germany permit the sale and consumption of hemp foods, hemp oils and so forth. Hemp is cultivated in Canada, as I mentioned, China, Thailand and a number of European countries, in particular France, Germany, Romania and the UK. The levels of THC are negligible at the very most. Canada has allowed the whole range of hemp production from fibre to seeds, including export and import, since 1998.

Back in Australia, FSANZ itself says, in research carried out on its behalf into low-THC hemp as a food, that it has no safety concerns with regard to the consumption of hemp foods. Its concerns are more with the costs of regulation. As I understand it, they related to the decision that came out of the forum in New Zealand around law and order issues, particularly in relation to roadside drug testing. But I make the point again that this is not cannabis; this is industrial hemp that has nil or very, very low levels of THC. The hold-up in Australia and New Zealand joining the rest of the world and legalising the cultivation of hemp for human consumption needs to be addressed by our state and federal health ministers and their bureaucrats.

Last year, I wrote to all the states' health ministers, the responsible federal minister at the time and the Prime Minister, urging them to push for an earlier resolution to this matter than the scheduled next meeting of FSANZ, which was January this year. That was not possible, but I was surprised and, of course, again disappointed that the scheduled January meeting again refused to allow hemp to be grown as a food in Australia and New Zealand. The regulatory body had previously called for more evidence supporting the legalisation of hemp for food consumption as its reason for delaying a positive decision. Concerns were again raised by several FSANZ members that marketing of hemp as a food might send a confused message to consumers about the acceptability and safety of cannabis. It sounds like bureaucratic bungling to me. I found this astounding. The body has received vast amounts of information over many, many years, including scientific evidence about the make-up of the category of hemp to be grown as food, which absolutely refutes any such suggestion. Mr Phil Reader—it is not the first time I have mentioned him in this place—a Tasmanian farmer at Bishopsbourne in my electorate of Lyons, has answered all these questions over and again in the many years that he and his colleagues, such as Pip and Tim Schmidt from Red Hills, on the western side of Deloraine, have been campaigning on this issue.

As I said earlier, many countries around the world have been growing hemp as a food for years and have had no problems. The tragic irony is that we can buy these imported food products here in Australia but cannot buy Australian grown equivalents. Against all this evidence, I can only conclude that this process has been caught up within the department. I am sure we can find a way through.

That is why I support the amendments proposed in the bill as it was moved. I encourage those on the other side: playing politics on this issue is not the point of this and, as I say, frankly, Australians are sick of this. This bill brings about clarity to the operation of FSANZ regulation. It is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and provide greater clarification for business and FSANZ by removing uncertainty and improving consistency in the way in which the regulatory body outlines procedures for consideration of food regulatory measures. That can only help speed up the decision on growing industrial hemp for food consumption that Phil Reader and others have been campaigning for for over a decade.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy of the Labor Party in moving this amendment to the second reading motion is typical of their outdated view on governance, which relies on boards being filled with people based on their positions as opposed to boards appointed based on skills and expertise. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The decision to change the nomination process for the FSANZ board was not a decision of the minister; it was a decision of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which consists of ministers from Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. The member for Throsby might like to reflect on the fact that his Labor colleagues South Australian minister Jack Snelling, ACT minister Simon Corbell and the Victorian minister Jill Hennessy agreed with the proposed changes. Rather than playing politics with this bill, maybe he should speak to his Labor colleagues.

Any changes to this legislation not agreed to by the forum would breach our international obligations with the New Zealand government under the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning a Joint Food Standards System—the food treaty. To date, New Zealand has been consulted and has agreed to changes throughout the process of the drafting of this bill. Again, we see Labor attempting to block this bill even though their Labor state and territory colleagues agreed that the change needed to happen.

In regard to Mr Jones's comments surrounding the Health Star Rating, under the leadership of this government so far we have 54 companies signed up to HSR and over 1,500 products on the shelves. Just this week we have seen two major companies—Kellogg's and Nestle—reformulating their food because of this government's voluntary scheme. Kellogg's reformulated their recipe for Nutri-Grain to go from two stars to four stars. Nestle reformulated 10 of its snack and muesli bars, reducing salt by 63 per cent, sugar by 32 per cent and fat by 16 per cent.

I also make the point to Mr Jones that phase 2 of the education campaign for the Health Star Rating system ran from June to August and used print, online and out-of-home advertising to continue to raise consumer awareness of the HSR system and visually reinforce the campaign message of comparing similarly packaged products. Data suggests that 47 per cent of people are now highly likely to use the HSR on a regular basis, which is up from 40 per cent in April 2015. Of those who have seen any of the advertising, 37 per cent state they have used the HSR in stores and 30 per cent have tried to eat more healthily. Does this seem like the government is trying to undermine the Health Star Rating system? On the contrary, we are successfully implementing and promoting it.

I thank members for their contribution to the debate.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.