Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule.

Labor's amendments, modest but important, delete the proposed changes within the bill to the composition of the board. If the amendments are accepted, the board will continue in its current composition—finely balanced and independent. If you want a reason why it is necessary to retain the independence of the board, you need look no further than the contribution from the member for Lyons. He was passionate but he was ill informed. He criticised the food standards authority, and the unknown bureaucrats who work within the organisation, for knocking off his passionate support—and that of the people he presumably represents—for cannabis which is produced as a food product. I can inform the member for Lyons and the House that the board of FSANZ, and indeed the expert bodies, have referred to the ministerial council propositions which would authorise the production and sale of cannabis for food products within Australia. It was the ministerial council which knocked off this proposal. And that in a nutshell demonstrates the importance of having a proper tension between experts and elected politicians who sit on the ministerial council as opposed to the scientists, the health experts and the industry experts who sit on the board. That demonstrates in a nutshell why that is necessary, because were it not for the scientific expertise and the health expertise of the people on the board that proposition would never have got to the ministerial council. It would have been killed before it got there. It proves in a nutshell why we need to have independent expertise across a range of areas not subject to the appointment and discretion of the minister, whoever he or she may be from day to day. We argue that the current arrangements are serving us well.

The assistant minister argues that somehow in opposing the amendments before the House we will do some damage to our relations with the states and our friends in New Zealand. Nothing could be further from the truth. I say this: we have worked very cooperatively with the Assistant Minister for Health on most matters that have come before this House, and I hope that we are able to do that into the future as well. As an alternative government and when in government, we have also worked cooperatively with state and territory members to the intergovernmental agreement and with New Zealand and with our counterparts on the ministerial council. But we are a sovereign parliament. For the assistant minister to stand there and somehow threaten us and say that we are not entitled to represent our democratic rights and speak against and vote against a proposition that comes before this House when we believe that it is not in the public interest, frankly, is breathtaking.

I say to those members on that side of the House and I say to all government members: do the simple thing. We support 50 per cent of what you are proposing in his legislation. If you agree to our amendments, it will sail through this place, it will sail through the other place and the changes that you propose and claim you really need will be passed into law. But in no contribution that we have heard in the House—not the contribution from the member for Lyons, not the contribution from the minister in her second reading speech, not the contribution from my good friend the parliamentary secretary—have we seen a justification for the provisions that we object to.

What is the evil that they are attempting to address through this legislation? We are as yet ignorant of the malady that they are attempting to redress. We argue that the current provisions have served us well, they should remain settled, and if the government agree to our amendments the bill will sail through this House and the other place and we can get on with the important business of protecting Australians and the food that they eat.

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

I find it interesting that the member for Throsby's proposition that where states and territories nominate from within their jurisdictions, including New Zealand and those others that I referred to, it is being seen as an appointment by the minister. The jurisdictions, in putting forward membership, select from their systems people with the expertise and knowledge to fulfil the roles required on the board. The minister approves the names that come forward. Minister Ley neither selects them nor interferes with the process that has been established and agreed to. I find it astounding that the member for Throsby thinks that when you have states and territories, the New Zealand government, the Commonwealth and the ministers who represent each of those jurisdictions putting names forward it is interfering with a sovereign process that he refers to in respect of this chamber. That is far from the fact. His amendments disregard each of the jurisdictions who in their own sovereign right have put forward names that they want considered to represent them in all of the deliberations. The protections that he refers to that are diminished by his supposition in fact do not occur. Having been a senior bureaucrat who participated in the FSANZ process out of New South Wales, I know that all of the appointments came at the directions of the relevant agencies and they were respected and considered for both their knowledge and their capacity to contribute to the debates on food security and their brief in respect of the terms that they operate under.

So I challenge the member for Throsby as to what his true purpose is—why is it that he seeks to challenge his Labor colleagues in the states where there are Labor governments and to refute the selection of those they nominate. I think the member for Throsby should give due consideration to the sovereignty of each of the jurisdictions. Again, in their wisdom, they have provided over the years outstanding members to FSANZ and in all of their deliberations I know that they have considered all of the detail required. If they need expertise or expert advice then they seek it from within their jurisdictions and include that advice in all considerations. There is no way that the government will consider what the member for Throsby and those on the other side are proposing, so the amendments that he is putting forward are not supported and are contrary to his own colleagues in the state and territory jurisdictions.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not bound by them.

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

Whilst you make the comment that they are not bound by them, we respect the integrity of the process—we respect the integrity of the way in which the body itself has come forward with the advice to the minister as to the changes that are required. I think we should respect that integrity because even in terms of the agreement between Australia and New Zealand there is considerable weight given to that agreement and in respect of consideration to even New Zealand's nominees he again seems to question the integrity of their process of appointing the relevant people. I understand that there are other bodies that he might think should be considered in the context of what he is proposing, but the forum will have the opportunity to call upon expert advice, and they will have the opportunity of linking with the relevant government agencies and seeking from them their input into the process. This also enables streamlining so that our food security and the issues the member for Throsby raises are reflected on and deliberated upon by those who have been selected within their jurisdictions. His amendments do not really meet the expectations of the advice we have been given and nor do they reflect the jurisdictions that are part of this process. I hope that he will reconsider his proposition and come on board and support the third reading of the bill.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.