Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to this bill to be moved, including supplementary information relating to the explanatory memorandum for the bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 12 June 2007. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet QW325 together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet QW325:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 11 and 12), omit “boxed”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 76, page 67 (lines 10 to 16), omit subsection 109(9), substitute:

        (9)    If the Council notifies the Authority that it is formulating policy guidelines for the purposes of paragraph 18(2)(e):

             (a)    the Authority may, subject to subsections (9A) and (9B), suspend its consideration of any application which, in the opinion of the Authority, would be affected by the guidelines once formulated; and

             (b)    if the Authority suspends its consideration of an application, notify the applicant of the suspension, and the period of the suspension.

     (9A)    If:

             (a)    an applicant has applied for the development or variation of a standard; and

             (b)    an exclusive capturable commercial benefit would be conferred on the applicant if the standard were made or varied in the manner sought in the application; and

             (c)    either:

                   (i)    the charge fixed under subparagraph 146(6)(b)(ii) in relation to the application is paid; or

                  (ii)    in a case where the charge is payable in instalments—each instalment that is due and payable in relation to the application is paid;

the Authority must not suspend its consideration of the application unless the applicant first consents to that suspension.

      (9B)    If:

             (a)    an applicant elects to have the consideration of his or her application expedited; and

             (b)    either:

                   (i)    the charge fixed under subparagraph 146(6)(b)(ii) in relation to the application is paid; or

                  (ii)    in a case where the charge is payable in instalments—each instalment that is due and payable in relation to the application is paid;

the Authority must not suspend its consideration of the application unless the applicant first consents to that suspension.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 76, page 70 (lines 12 to 14), omit subsection 112(6).

Why is the government introducing these amendments to the bill? On 29 March 2007 the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which delivered its report on 1 May this year. As I mentioned previously, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also reviewed the bill and included its comments on the bill in the bill’s Alert Digest No. 5 of 2007. Both reports make recommendations that propose the development and tabling of relatively minor government amendments. In light of these reports the government is moving three relatively minor non-controversial amendments to the bill. Amendment (1), in relation to the editorial notes, is to schedule 1, item 13, page 6, lines 11 and 12 of the bill, which amends the definition of ‘standard’ in subsection 3(1) of the act to clarify that text identified as an editorial note or an example is not part of the standard. The original drafting specifies that boxed text identified as editorial notes or examples is not part of a standard. The word ‘boxed’ has been removed so that proposed subsection 3(1) of the act also excludes editorial notes and examples which are not in boxed text format. The amendment proposed retains the policy intent that all text identified in the Food Standards Code as an editorial note or example is not part of a standard.

Secondly, the amendment proposed in relation to the stop-the-clock provisions is to schedule 1, item 76, page 67 of the bill. Clause 109 in the bill originally allowed the authority—that is, FSANZ—to suspend consideration of all applications if the authority considered that the application might be affected by the policy guideline under development by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. It is proposed to amend this provision to provide applicants with an option to proceed with the assessment process of a paid application. The authority will inform applicants about the role of the ministerial council in the standards development process and that approval, if it is granted, may be rescinded or amended if necessary following any contrary policy decision by the ministerial council.

Subclause 112(6) of the original bill authorised the amendment of the standards development process in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 by regulation. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is concerned that such a provision involves a delegation of legislative power. Following consultation with Food Standards Australia New Zealand, it appears that the provision has never been utilised and that there are no existing regulations to this effect. The intention of this amendment is simply to remove the provision.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5246:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 11, insert:

11A  Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

product of Australia and made in Australia andAustralian made means 100% manufactured, produced, assembled or processed in Australia.

This amendment adds a subsection which relates to whether or not a product is made in Australia. It says that ‘product of Australia’, ‘made in Australia’ and ‘Australian made’ mean 100 per cent manufactured, produced, assembled or processed in Australia. I do not know how many people are aware that ‘made in Australia’ at the moment means that only 50 per cent of the product has to be made in Australia. If a product is 100 per cent made in Australia, it says ‘product of Australia’. I challenge anybody walking around a supermarket not to think that if a product says ‘made in Australia’ it is 100 per cent made in Australia, not 50 per cent made in Australia and 50 per cent not made in Australia. The 50 per cent made in Australia could be the jar; it might not even be the food.

This amendment means the standard will require that if a product says ‘made in Australia’ it is 100 per cent made in Australia; if it says ‘product of Australia’, it is 100 per cent made in Australia; if it says ‘Australian made’, it is 100 per cent made in Australia. We believe this is very important. It is about telling the truth to consumers, about allowing consumers to make a choice and about setting a standard whereby they know with total reliability that when they have bought something in Australia it is made in Australia, because people associate a certain level of safety and quality with products, particularly food products, that are made in Australia. We believe that this is an extremely important amendment that clarifies something that has been unclear to many consumers. As I said, I bet that most consumers do not know when they buy a product that is labelled ‘made in Australia’ that as little as 50 per cent of that product could be made in Australia. As I said, we believe that this is an important amendment and I commend it the chamber.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Labor Party will be supporting the amendment proposed by the Greens referring to the ‘made in Australia’ label. I agree with Senator Siewert: there is no clarity about what the label in fact means. I think that this is a sensible amendment that will assist in clarifying that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand Senator Siewert’s frustration, but this bill is not the place to forward this sort of policy proposal. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act is Commonwealth legislation that establishes the food regulator and sets out the process for developing and amending food standards. This is a Commonwealth act and it has no legal application within the states and territories. This legislation is enforced by states and territories and, indeed, New Zealand under their own food and health acts. An amendment of this sort in an act such as this will have no effect where it counts, and that is in the jurisdictions that enforce and administer the legislation. The government’s point is purely that this is the wrong place to suggest this sort of amendment. I suggest to honourable senators that such a proposal would have to come through the ministerial council, which is a consultative group of all jurisdictions of the Federation, including the territories and New Zealand, or that people would have to make an application to FSANZ for the development of a food standard. Those are the two ways in which an effect could be had on standards within Australia where they in fact have an impact and are enforced, and that is in state and territory legislation. The government opposes this amendment.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5246:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 11, insert:

11B  Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

public health is the organised response by society to minimise illness, injury and disability and to protect and promote health. It recognises that health and health care occur in an economic and socio-cultural system both nationally and internationally, and therefore seeks to influence all sectors to maximise the health and wellbeing of society. The precautionary principle should be applied in relation to all public health outcomes considered under this Act.

This relates to public health. I outlined the reasons why we believe this is essential in my speech in the second reading debate. I just want to remind people that the objective of the act is clearly the protection of public health and safety, but we believe that the act does not adequately define what public health is. We therefore seek to define it. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs did make comment on the lack of clarity around public health. I was hoping that the government would seek to further clarify that definition.

I also note that the Australian Medical Association raised the issue of public health. In fact, it recommended that a better definition be included in the act. In its submission to the committee it also had quite a lengthy definition on the precautionary principle and how it should be applied. I did not think it was practical to enclose such a lengthy definition of the precautionary principle, so I narrowed it down somewhat. I think that a definition of this nature in the act would make the issue around public health and safety clearer. Again, I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Labor Party cannot support this particular amendment, which is an attempt to define public health. We prefer the wording that the Democrats have proposed and we will be supporting their amendment. We understand the intent of the Greens amendment but we think the language that the Democrats have proposed is probably more apt.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that Senator Siewert’s recollection of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs is quite right. The committee did recommend a definition of public health in the FSANZ Act, but the government decided not to adopt it for several reasons. The role of food regulation in achieving public health objectives is currently being considered by the Food Regulation Standing Committee strategic working group. It is an issue that is currently under consideration. A determination on this complex issue cannot be made by the Commonwealth alone. Such a definition will have a significant impact on all jurisdictions, including New Zealand. I think it is important—I mentioned this before but I want to stress it—that this is a consultative federal process that has impact on the ground where it matters in the states and the territories where the law is enforced. This is a highly consultative process and, for this to occur, all the states and territories and New Zealand would need to be involved. The government is actively monitoring the progress on this issue and will consider whether the objectives of the FSANZ Act ought to be clarified once this process is complete. The government notes however that there is a need to avoid any clarification of the definition of public health that would result in unintentionally narrowing the scope of the act’s objectives. I suspect that all honourable senators agree with that.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats also prefer our amendment to the Greens amendment, as might be expected. We might as well have the debate on both amendments and I will move mine later. It seems extraordinary to me that you can have an objective, which is the protection of public health and safety, and not be prepared to provide a definition of what that might mean. I can understand that you would wish to have maximum consultation, but presumably this bill had consultation and it must have been an oversight—surely you can assure us of that—that at the same time you did not consider defining that. I would also argue that you could put this definition into the bill and that it could be adjusted at some later stage should it be found to be totally inappropriate. However, I think the definition that we have put forward is a pretty straightforward one that few would find reason to argue against. I would be interested in the advice that you would take in this consultation you are having with New Zealand, even if you can indicate whether there are items on either Senator Siewert’s or the Democrats’ amendment which you would not want to pursue in such a consultation.

The problem with not having definitions is that that opens the way for interpretations, which might be at odds with what was intended. There could, for instance, be cases where the definition is interpreted as pertaining only to food safety and food borne illness. That would be a very limited view of public health and safety which would only address the short-term health impact of food regulation rather than the long-term impact on the health and nutrition of individuals and populations. I am sure there would be many other examples that one could give of how interpretations of a nondefinition might occur. It would be useful if you could advise us about what approach the government is going to take. Surely you have got some draft somewhere that you would take into such consultations. It is hard to believe that you would not have thought about this at all.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned, this is a consultative process and all jurisdictions—all territories, states and New Zealand—would have to be consulted. I think I also mentioned, in relation to the arguments raised by Senator Siewert, that this issue is currently being considered by the Food Regulation Standing Committee strategic working group. I have just been advised, Senator Allison, in response to your robust debate, that a progress report from the Food Regulation Standing Committee strategic working group is due in October this year. I suspect we are making some headway, even if it is not perhaps as fast as you would like.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that there is some reluctance to tell us what is being consulted about through the process, but I am wondering if that includes the issue of precautionary principle. Are you including that in the process?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not certain about that; I do not know, but I do know that the role of food regulation in achieving public health objectives is very complex, controversial and the consultation process is ongoing.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 5272:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 11, insert:

11B  Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

public health is the organised response by society to protect, promote and restore health, and to prevent illness, injury and disability at a population level, recognising the multidimensional nature of the determinants of health, including biological, behavioural, social and environmental factors.

I wonder, Parliamentary Secretary, if you could advise us what the process will be for eventually putting in a definition. Will it come back as an amendment to this bill at some stage? Will there be any sort of consultation? And what is the time frame for achieving this aim?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned, in October there will be a progress report. For the definition of public health to be meaningful and have an impact on regulation of food within Australia, there will need to be not only consultation but agreement by the states, the territories and New Zealand. So this is not something that can be done quickly or simply by an amendment to a Commonwealth act; it will take some time to achieve a consensus.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 5250:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 34), after item 18, insert:

18A  After section 9

Insert:

9AA Matters that must be included in standards

        (1)    The Authority must develop a standard for a simplified nutrition front-of-pack labelling scheme that:

             (a)    provides separate information on the nutrient content of a product being each of the fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt content of a product;

             (b)    uses red, amber or green colour coding to indicate the content level of nutrients mentioned in paragraph (a) in the product where a high level of nutrients is indicated by the colour red, a medium level of nutrients is indicated by the colour amber and a low level of nutrients is indicated by the colour green;

             (c)    uses nutritional criteria developed by the Authority to determine the colour code including a method of linking the colour code to specific levels of nutrients; and

             (d)    gives information on the levels of nutrients mentioned in paragraph (a) contained per portion of product.

        (2)    For the purpose of this section, front-of-pack labelling means a display of printed information:

             (a)    on or attached to the goods;

             (b)    on or attached to a container or primary package in which the goods are supplied.

        (3)    The standard required by subsection (1) must be implemented before the expiration of 3 months after the Food Regulation Standing Committee Front-of-Pack Labelling Working Group reports to the Council.

This puts in place a system of labelling for food which is commonly known as the ‘traffic light system’—that is, a system of labelling which essentially identifies those foods that are high in salt, in fats and in sugar. This is in response to a very serious problem Australia faces—that is, obesity. Australia has one of the highest rates of child obesity in the world. It seems to us, and to many others that we speak with—physicians and parents and people who are interested in turning around this very serious problem in this country—that one of the issues associated with obesity is lack of information about what exactly is in the foods that are purchased so that ignorance on the part of people is not entirely up to them to solve. This is why we suggest introducing a labelling system that would assist people—assist parents and assist children—to understand the implications of the foods they eat and to allow them to make healthy choices so that we can avoid some of the serious problems which are facing our health system and our young people right now.

It is also critical at a time when you could argue that genetic engineering, intensive farming and highly processed food are more available than at any time in the past. A wide array of highly processed cereals presents itself in every supermarket to mum or dad or whoever it is who goes shopping with the kids. It can be quite difficult to figure out what is good for you and what is not. We know that the current system of labelling on foods is difficult to understand. If you have not brought your glasses with you to the supermarket, it can be difficult to even read it. Sometimes it is so hidden on the back of the product that you cannot find it anyway.

We have done quite a lot of work to investigate what a system that would overcome that might be, and we believe that it is appropriate for the authority to develop, as the amendment says:

... a standard for a simplified nutrition front-of-pack labelling scheme that:

(a) provides separate information on the nutrient content of a product being each of the fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt content of a product—

and—

(b) uses red, amber or green colour coding to indicate the content level of nutrients mentioned.

And, where there is a high level of nutrients, that is:

... indicated by ... red, a medium level ... is indicated by ... amber and a low level of nutrients ... is indicated by the colour green.

We believe that would go a long way to assisting to provide information to consumers about exactly what they are buying and how good or otherwise it is for their health.

It is quite interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing had a launch just last month of a 155-page guide to explain food labels. That is an indication that the system that we have at the present time is not working. I really cannot see people going to the supermarket with the 155-page booklet, trying to figure out what is good for you and what is not. Not only is the booklet 155 pages long but it costs $14.95, so we expect people to purchase this great document and turn up and be informed about what to eat.

The labelling system at the present time tells us something of what the ingredients are in a given product, but it does not tell us the much more essential information that we now know is necessary. So I strongly suggest that we move towards a system which is now recommended. I understand that the United Kingdom and other countries are moving in this direction, so it is not a new concept. It has been tried and tested elsewhere. I can assure you, Parliamentary Secretary, that parents, in particular, are crying out for such a scheme. It would assist enormously in informing both them and their children about what is safe and good to eat.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison is quite right. Labelling is an issue, and it is an important issue, particularly in the context of obesity and fat content. Indeed, the booklet that I launched the other day—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore interjecting—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore reminds me that it is $14.95. It is money very well worth spending, I think, because it explains all about nutrition and labelling of products. Senator Allison, you are also quite right to suggest that this traffic light system, if we can call it that, is being used in Great Britain with some, although not complete, success.

While I agree with you about concerns about food labelling, as I mentioned to Senator Siewert earlier in a slightly different context, this is not a matter for this legislation. It is a matter to be taken to the food regulator, FSANZ, for assessment and possible inclusion as a food standard. That is one possibility. Food labelling can of course also be addressed by the ministerial council and, again, by all jurisdictions: the states, the territories and New Zealand. It is not an issue that can be addressed, by an amendment, through this legislation. That is not a criticism of the argument that we need a change to food-labelling practices. That may well be right, but this legislation is not the place to do it. I should inform the Senate that the issue of front-of-pack labelling is currently under consideration by the ministerial council, which will advise FSANZ of a way forward, but this legislation is not the place to do it.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I differ from the minister on whether this is the place to do it or not, and I remind the parliamentary secretary that this amendment is simply to instruct the authority to produce a system. We have not attempted to indicate how much fat or salt or anything of that sort should be included in the red-light system but, rather, it is an expression of instruction, if you like, to an authority to develop such a system. We have not attempted to develop it here; that is not what this amendment is about. It is about giving an instruction to an authority to do it.

It would be useful to know whether Australia is going to be proactive in this way. Will you, as part of the food standards process, be pursuing this or not? It would be useful for us to know that. I assume that in this, as in most consultations, the government will be going in with a platform that it starts with as a negotiating point. Is that going to be the case? Will a traffic light system or something similar be part of the negotiation we take into this consultation?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to reiterate, Senator Allison, the act cannot instruct the states, territories and New Zealand. Only the ministerial council can do that. Again, that is a consultative process, not something that can be directed from this act. The Commonwealth’s position will depend on what the ministerial council decides. You are quite right that the United Kingdom have a traffic light system, but they are currently reviewing their labelling procedures as well. So, as you say, it is an issue primarily because of the issue of obesity, but this bill is not the place to enact those standards. I have just been advised that a progress report will come down from the ministerial council in October this year in relation to front-of-pack labelling.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that, whilst Labor have spoken long and loud about the need to respond to the epidemic of obesity—I do not know whether we can say that, but it is getting close—and we need to do something about it, we concur with the parliamentary secretary’s explanation of why this is not the appropriate way to do it. Something has to happen and it has to happen pretty quickly, and part of the solution will be appropriate labelling to inform consumers—whether they are children or the parents who are being badgered by those children to buy a certain product—about what that product contains in an easy-to-read message. There is a lot of potential merit in the traffic light system, but I agree with the parliamentary secretary that this is not the place to enact that policy intent.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this amendment. As you can probably tell from my contribution to the second reading debate on the bill and from our proposed amendments on children’s television standards, we are deeply concerned about what we believe to be an obesity epidemic in our children. The Greens believe that an easy-to-use system—and one that children can participate in—is necessary. My sister has studied food technology at university. She has three children and, as you can probably appreciate, she pays close attention to what is in food products. However, she has great difficulty going around the supermarket with three kids under the age of 10 and trying to explain to them why they cannot have certain products while she is reading in depth the back of a product and trying to interpret it. Reading a book while having three kids in tow does not work very well. Can you believe that? The kids frequently come very close to winning the nagging competition. An easy-to-use system that is quick to use and that also engages your children so that they could learn as well would be very useful. We say to the government: ‘Please take this on board and get moving on it because it is essential.’

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect that we all agree that labelling must be clearer and that something has to be done, but I think we disagree on the process. This is not the right place to do it.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (2) on sheet 5272:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 74, page 37 (line 5), at the end of section 42, add:

          ; or (iii)    involves the addition of vitamins or minerals to food.

Amendment (4) brings back the public consultation requirement into any proposal that relates to variations to high-level health claims. The changes to the health claims process remove public consultation altogether, which we think is a serious omission. Because health claims may have a significant impact on public health and safety as well as on consumer information, they should be subject to the full assessment and consultation process. Removing all public consultation in favour of expert committees excludes many key stakeholders from participating in consultation, and it also places the interests of the food industry above the interests of consumers that this legislation is charged to protect. This is inconsistent with the three primary objectives of the act, which relate to the protection of public health and safety, the provision of consumer information and the prevention of misleading and deceptive conduct. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could advise us as to what led to the public consultation requirement being taken out in the first instance and, if this amendment is not supported by the government, why that is the case.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, could you clarify what amendment you are talking to? We are dealing with sheet 5272, amendment (2), about the addition of vitamins and minerals.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understood that that was what I was speaking to.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, perhaps I can help. I think Senator Allison was referring to item (4) in relation to public notification, whereas amendment (2) relates to the addition of vitamins and minerals.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you are quite right. The numbering system on my sheet has got that the wrong way around—so I will start again. Amendment (2) requires the full consultation process for proposals that involve the addition of vitamins and minerals. The consultation paper leading into this bill cites the addition of vitamins and minerals to food as an example of an application that would require only one round of public consultation because it would merely be a change to an existing table. This ignores the considerable debate amongst industry, public health and medical professionals about the fortification of food with vitamins and minerals—they have the potential for significant implications for public health—and the marketing of these products may result in misleading and deceptive conduct. We argue, therefore, that it should be subject to the full consultation process.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government believes that there is nothing inherently problematic about the addition of vitamins to food that necessitates two rounds of public consultation rather than one, but if the issue warrants that level of scrutiny—that is, two rounds of public consultation—FSANZ, the food standards authority, is able to go down that route.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will support the Democrat amendment to have the two rounds of consultation prior to approval of the addition of vitamins and minerals to food.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Likewise, the Greens will support this amendment. This came up during the committee inquiry, and the issue about the need for a second round of consultation was raised. The Greens believe that this warrants that sort of consultation process, so we will support this amendment.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (3) on sheet 5272:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 74, page 56 (lines 31 to 34), omit paragraph 95(2)(d).

This amendment opposes the ability of the authority to declare the variation as urgent just because of an impact of trade. We do not agree with that. The government, effectively, elevates the trade interests to a level similar to that of public health and safety, and we think that is inconsistent with section 10 of the objectives of the act.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will not support this amendment. It is our view that the inclusion of this provision by the government was a common-sense approach and we support its retention.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may not come as any surprise that the Greens will support this amendment. It is amendments like this by the government that drive people to say that the act puts the interests of the food industry before public health and safety, so we believe this is a good amendment and we will support it.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas put it very well: it is a common-sense amendment. The situation could occur where it is necessary to utilise the urgency provisions in order to address an unforeseen negative impact on trade. The bill includes the safeguard that ensures that the trade ground can only be used if it is consistent with FSANZ objectives of the protection of public health and safety, the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices, and the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct. So the protection of public health and safety remains paramount.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the parliamentary secretary able to provide an example of where this might be necessary?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An example of this would be an improvement in technology that could detect minuscule levels of a substance which, although not harmful, is not permitted under the food standards code. In a situation where—for example, on apples—new technology enables the detection of even the tiniest trace of an element that is not permitted, trade could be interfered with and an urgency provision would overcome that problem.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (4) on sheet 5272:

(4)    Schedule 2, item 9, page 79 (lines 2 to 16), omit section 51, substitute:

51  Calling for submissions

        (1)    When applying for a high level health claims variation, the Authority must give public notice calling for submissions relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

        (2)    The notice must:

             (a)    state that the Authority has prepared a draft high level health claims variation; and

             (b)    include a copy of the draft variation, or state how a copy of the draft variation can be obtained; and

             (c)    call for written submissions, for the purpose of the Authority’s consideration of the draft variation, to be given to the Authority within the period specified in the notice (the submission period).

I spoke earlier about amendment (4). This amendment brings back the public consultation requirement in any proposal that relates to variations to high-level health claims. I will not go through the arguments that I put before.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will support this amendment as well, and we covered the reasons during the second reading debate.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The high-level health claims committee is the technical committee that is capable of assessing the veracity—indeed, the weight—of health claims proposed by food manufacturers. This is a technical and scientific issue. Public con-sultation would not necessarily add to strengthening this process or protecting consumers from misleading behaviour. During the development of the health claim standard by FSANZ, the public was consulted twice. The interested public is very aware of the new health claims currently being developed. So there has been public consultation in developing this standard, and the government believes that this is a technical and scientific issue well placed for the high-level health claims committee to look at.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will support this amendment.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (5), (6) and (7) on sheet 5257:

(5)    Schedule 3, item 5, page 89 (line 10), omit “draft after review”, substitute “or request second review of draft after first review”.

(6)    Schedule 3, item 5, page 89 (line 17), at the end of subsection 88(1), add:

; or (d)    request that the Authority review the draft.

(7)    Schedule 3, item 5, page 89 (after line 19), after section 88, insert:

A second review is to be conducted in the same manner as the first review as provided for in this Division.

These amendments keep the minister’s ability to have two opportunities to request a review of any FSANZ application or proposal. The bill proposes to reduce it to one, as I understand it. The food industry says that these reviews are unnecessarily prolonging the standard development process and prevent the commercial benefits of getting new, innovative products onto the market quickly. It is not clear how consumers might be disadvantaged when application processes are prolonged as a result of ministerial requests for review. In requesting these reviews, ministers are looking after the interests of their constituents when they feel the consumer and public health interests have not been adequately addressed. Limiting the capacity of ministers to request a review would limit their ability to protect the interests of consumers. It is our understanding that second reviews have only been requested on a very few occasions. So there seems to be no good reason to remove them.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will support these amendments. They reflect the concerns that we heard during the Senate inquiry, and we think they are sensible amendments.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens, likewise, will support these amendments. I concur with Senator McLucas—the concerns were expressed during the inquiry process and these amendments reflect those concerns.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind honourable senators that all ministers on the ministerial council, representing all jurisdictions in New Zealand, have endorsed the removal of the opportunity to request a second review. They have all agreed to that. Following an initial review, if any, the ministerial council will proceed to the last stage of the current process, which requires a decision to accept, amend or reject the draft standard. Experience thus far has shown that the second opportunity to review a food standard is of little value and that the process to finalise this standard could be improved and streamlined by removing the capacity for a second review. I repeat: following exhaustive consultation across all jurisdictions and across many stakeholders, it was agreed that the ministerial council did not require the opportunity for a second review.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5248:

(1)    Page 92 (after line 6), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 4—Amendment of the Children’s Television Standards

Children’s Television Standards 2005

1  At the end of CTS 10

Add:

; (e)    advertise food or beverages unless the Minister for Health, having determined that such an advertisement is beneficial to the health of children, allows such an advertisement.

This is about putting in place a schedule at the end of Children’s Television Standard 10. I point out that standard 10 is about material that is unsuitable for broadcasting during a C period or a P period. It includes demeaning any people or group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preferences, religion or mental or physical ability. There is an extensive list. What the Greens seek to do is to add a standard that relates to the advertising of food and beverages.

As I articulated in my second reading contribution, the Greens are extremely concerned about the increasing epidemic of obesity in Australia. Ninety per cent of the money spent on food advertising, which in 2004 was $410 million, was spent on fast food, chips, lollies, soft drinks and ice-cream. Only about one per cent could be specifically identified as having been spent on healthy food. Before we start talking about whether this is putting in place a nanny state, people should bear in mind that we do ban other advertising—cigarettes being the classic example. In places overseas, measures such as this have been adopted.

The government may argue: ‘Why put this in place? People do not pay attention to ads.’ Our argument is: ‘Why does the government spend so much money on advertising? Advertisers spend close to 70 times more money on food ads than the government spends on promoting healthy lifestyles.’ We believe that the advertising of junk food is deliberately targeted at young children in prime television time, and it is directly related to the increase in obesity. We believe that it is about time that action was taken to restrict the time that these sorts of advertisements can be shown on Australian television. We therefore move this amendment to put some control on the time that junk food can be advertised. This should be part of a package of materials, such as appropriate labelling and those sorts of things, but we believe this amendment would go a long way to addressing how these advertisements directly address children.

As a parent, you can exercise as much control as you like, but it is still undermined by the material being advertised on television. Having gone around shopping centres for years with my son and being nagged—and now I am doing it with my nieces and nephews—I can tell you that the power of television advertising of junk food is immense. No matter what you say in the middle of a supermarket to a screaming toddler—and some of them are a bit bigger than that—it is very difficult. I believe this measure is essential if we are to address the epidemic that we face in this country.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats support a ban on advertising food during children’s television times as defined in various codes. We are not so sure about whether this is the right bill to do it—we think it is probably not—and we are also not so sure that you can usefully define which food is beneficial to the health of children and which is not. I think you would spend a lot of time arguing around that definitional point. Our preferred method of dealing with this situation is to simply ban food advertising during children’s television time, which would capture the vast majority of junk food advertising. You could have an exemption for community service advertisements, which would pick up on foods, such as apples, that you might want to advertise as being healthy for children. This obviously will not be passed in the chamber tonight but I point out that, in principle, the Democrats support a ban on television advertising of food during children’s viewing hours but we somehow doubt that this is the most appropriate way to do it. I would refer honourable senators to our private bill, which would deliver on that objective.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was hoping we might finish this before 11 pm, but I think we will be back in the morning, which is a shame. Labor will not be supporting this amendment.

Progress reported.