Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I did not steal your thunder then. I do not think it is appropriate that we have industry representatives on a body whose reason for existence is to ensure that practical, sensible recommendations are made on preventive health. My concern is that, as Senator Siewert suggested, industry will not have at heart the interests of Australian consumers and their health. If you look at the history of the tobacco industry in this country and overseas, the tobacco industry stalled and stalled about the medical evidence about tobacco for some 50 years, and we know what the consequences of that were: literally millions of lives were cut short because of the damage caused by cigarettes.

There is no reason why this body cannot obtain advice from industry or consumer groups, but to mandate industry representation I think goes against the very ethos of what this organisation is about. I think there is a fundamental conflict of interest in having industry representatives on the advisory council. For instance, if this amendment were passed, would it mean that industry representatives could include the tobacco industry or would it mean manufacturers of foods that are high in trans fats? I know that the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, on the opposition front bench has quite properly raised concerns about trans fats and the risks inherent in trans fats. A manufacturer of a product that has very serious health risks should not be at the table and part of the process. This organisation can obtain advice from industry and can obtain inputs from industry, but that is all that there should be. I think industry representatives being at the table is a bridge too far.