Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, it is $124 million. Thank you for your correction, Senator Barnett. Finally, $4.5 million over five years has been allocated to the healthy eating and physical activity guidelines for early childhood settings. This is an important part of our government’s plan for tackling obesity from early childhood. It will develop evidence based guidelines and materials to support healthy eating choices and physical activity in children attending early childhood settings such as kindergartens, child-care centres, preschool and family day care. The guidelines will be linked to the new national quality framework for these services that is to be introduced in July 2009.

This government’s commitment to preventing and ending obesity does not end there. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, has established the important Preventative Health Taskforce. This taskforce provides evidence based advice to the government and others on preventative health programs and strategies. It reports directly to the health minister. The taskforce has a focus on chronic disease caused by obesity, tobacco and excessive consumption of alcohol. Last year the taskforce, chaired by Professor Rob Moodie, released a discussion paper called Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. The taskforce also released three comprehensive technical reports, on obesity, tobacco and alcohol, for public comment.

The discussion paper is central to the process of engaging in community discussion as part of a national preventative health strategy. The draft strategy is expected to be released for comment shortly before being finalised and handed to the government in June 2009. So, the Rudd government already has a comprehensive package working on obesity prevention, especially for children. The government is making a significant investment in obesity prevention programs, but I acknowledge that this important problem requires more action than this. It also requires regulation.

We already have in place detailed regulatory mechanisms relating to food and beverage advertising. In particular, rules about advertising to children are set out in broadcasting standards and codes. For example, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 provides the system that regulates broadcasting content. Under this free-to-air system, broadcasters must comply with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the children’s television standards. This system requires that broadcasters ensure that appropriate material is broadcast at particular times of the day. This system of time bands aims to help viewers make informed choices about what they watch. It particularly gives parents the opportunity to decide on the suitability of what is broadcast for their children.

The current children’s television standards mean that no commercials can be shown in P periods and each 30 minutes of C period has no more than five minutes of commercials, with the exception of some drama programs. Importantly, the standards are very strict in that advertisements must not have any information that is misleading or just plain wrong about the nutritional value of that product. Under the children’s television standards, no material broadcast during a C period or P period can present images or events which depict unsafe uses of a product or unsafe situations which may encourage children to engage in any activity that is likely to harm them. This is not limited to advertisements but also includes program content. The regulation of content and advertising is also not limited to the two regulatory mechanisms I have already referred to.

The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice has a central role in the regulation of advertising to children. The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice says that advertisements to children for food and beverages:

(a) should not encourage or promote an inactive lifestyle combined with unhealthy eating or drinking habits; and

(b) must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of the product.

So there we have very extensive work that the government is already responsible for and is already doing in relation to obesity prevention in children and the regulation of advertising.

I would now like to talk about some additional aspects that this bill raises. As senators will know, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs presented its report in relation to this bill in December of last year. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented and taking into consideration current government initiatives in this area, the majority report of the committee recommended that the bill not be passed and that the information received by the committee be considered by the National Preventative Health Taskforce in their ongoing work, which is yet to report. The dissenting report from the Greens in relation to this bill stated that this recommendation ignored:

… the evidence and recommendations of the majority of submissions to the inquiry.

The dissenting report concluded that the Greens welcomed:

… the input for all contributors to the inquiry to strengthen and improve this Bill.

The Greens dissenting report did not explicitly state that the majority of submissions favoured the passage of the bill in its current form, but that is the implication. The Greens dissenting report acknowledged that many submissions to the Senate community affairs committee’s inquiry believed that the timing of the restrictions on advertising in the bill were not appropriate. The dissenting report indicated the Greens’ intention to move amendments to the bill to alter the timing of the restrictions in the bill, which they claimed were in line with ‘the preponderant evidence’. In fact, the Greens have moved those amendments. But what exactly is meant by ‘preponderant evidence’ in this context to me is not clear. In fact, a variety of views were expressed in submissions to the community affairs committee in relation to this matter, even from those who supported the broad intent of this legislation. The Greens’ rationale for giving weight to some expert views over others on this matter I do not think has been clearly articulated. Perhaps we will get some response on those issues.

What is not acknowledged in the Greens’ dissenting report is that many of those submissions that supported the overall intent of this bill had reservations about many of the features of the regulatory scheme outlined. They had reservations about features of the regulatory scheme, which I think are not minor but fundamental to the operation of the scheme that the Greens seek to put in place. These reservations did not pertain solely to the timing of the restrictions on advertising in the bill but extended to a range of other matters that are critical to the effective operation of the regulatory scheme outlined in this bill. For example, a number of submissions questioned the effectiveness of regulating TV advertising alone, while other forms of media remained unregulated. According to the majority report, these other media include:

… other broadcast media, internet and mobile phones, print media, promotions and premium offers, venue and outdoor advertising, the use of promotional characters and celebrities, packaging and sponsorships.

We are indeed inundated with all of this advertising in our daily lives. We should not give ourselves a false sense of security that we have dealt with that. It has to be done in a holistic manner. One submission—again a submission that was supportive of the overall intent of this bill—questioned whether exemptions to the restrictions should be at the discretion of the minister. It suggested that any exemptions would be better administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Several submissions—again including submissions that were supportive of the overall intent of this bill—were concerned to ensure that decisions about exemptions were based on transparent and appropriate criteria.

Some submissions questioned whether the decisions regarding exemptions should be based on Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient profiles. Some thought that these standards would need to be refined to distinguish between food and beverages for the purposes of television advertising, as they were not designed for this purpose. They offered several suggestions as to which experts should be involved in this process. I think that would be a worthwhile endeavour. Another submission suggested that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient profiles may not be appropriate for this purpose at all—that is, they might be confusing and subject to loopholes. Indeed, there are a variety of different ways that you can achieve these kinds of objectives. Through the Preventative Health Taskforce, which is yet to report, I would like to see these kinds of holistic measures taken. The submissions suggested alternative criteria based upon ‘foods and beverages that are considered to be basic core foods and part of core food groups’. That is where we want to look to go forward.

Some submissions, even those that were broadly supportive of the bill, raised a range of views in relation to which media should be subject to restrictions; what the timing of those restrictions should be; who should have the power to grant exemptions; what criteria should be used to grant exemptions; and who should be involved in determining, refining or developing the criteria that are used to grant exemptions. Those are rather a lot of questions about the legislation before us. That is what you get when you do not have the opportunity to make legislation through holistic processes.

I can to some extent acknowledge the efforts of the Greens in seeking to bring attention to the very important topic of childhood obesity. However, we need to use all the community resources and agencies of government to put together the kind of package that we need to tackle childhood obesity. That is something the government is already doing. I have to say that I think this is what you get when you are more concerned about making a point than about going through the painstaking process of sifting through the evidence and listening to the full variety of stakeholder views in order to determine the most appropriate and comprehensive public policy response or set of multifaceted responses to a problem. I do not disagree with the Greens’ intent in raising this issue and bringing it before the parliament. However, I counter with the fact that the government is effectively and very appropriately dealing with this issue through the Preventative Health Taskforce and the multifaceted approach I have outlined. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.