Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Food standards are something that many Australians take for granted, but this is a positive thing. It is a sign that we trust those who regulate the food industry and have confidence in the structures that the government have in place to ensure that we are all safe when we head out for a meal in a cafe or restaurant. We are very lucky to live in a country where, by and large, the places we choose to frequent for a meal out are regulated by a strict set of rules to ensure we are safe from avoidable food related illnesses.

FSANZ is a multijurisdictional agency that exists by intergovernment agreement and treaty between New Zealand and Australia. It sets food standards and cooperates with states, territories and New Zealand authorities which enforce food standards. It does a great job. It is unfortunate to note at the beginning of my remarks that, despite this great job, the government has made it harder for FSANZ to do by slashing around 10 per cent of the staff, or 12 full-time positions, in the last budget. Mr McCutcheon, FSANZ's CEO, said in budget estimates in February last year:

What we have done over the years because of our budget is to lose more in the risk management areas, rather than the risk assessment areas, because the risk assessment areas—they are our science areas—are the foundation of what we do. We have managed to retain our capability there, but we have lost some in the risk management areas, and corporately, which just means that it takes longer for us to do some of the standards development work, applications and those sorts of things.

Labor supports much of this bill and is generally supportive of the direction of the legislation which amends the legislation from which FSANZ operates. These amendments are largely mechanical in nature. The bill largely deals with the name change of the ministerial council to the Forum on Food Regulation. The bill will remove references to the former Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and replace them with references to the Australia and New Zealand Forum on Food Regulation which has replaced it.

The bill modernises the way that FSANZ communicates with other agencies, government departments and the public, which we believe is a positive change. Currently each of the following agencies is required to be notified by FSANZ of a range of actions: a department of state of the Commonwealth; the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council; the Gene Technology Regulator; the department of state of each state and territory that is primarily responsible for public health in that jurisdiction; all relevant state and territory food health authorities; a department of state of New Zealand; the New Zealand department of health; and any relevant New Zealand food authorities. A significant change is to allow FSANZ to inform government agencies it believes have an interest in its actions rather than every agency defined in the act. This will free up resources for the agency to focus on the main game of food safety. Labor believes this change to be benign. The change does not preclude another government agency from requesting FSANZ to inform them of their relevant actions nor does it preclude FSANZ from continuing to inform them. Further, FSANZ will still be required to publicly report on its website about its consideration of food regulatory measures so the information will always be accessible to those who have an interest in it, including the public.

The existing board structure is the product of Australian Labor working with the Australian Democrats and the Howard government in 2001. Democrat senators at the time said of Howard government proposed changes to the board composition:

The Australian Democrats believe there is a good case for some food industry representation on the FSANZ Board and acknowledge it is unlikely that a Board would be completely ‘stacked’ with industry interests, however, the Democrats believe a good case was made for an increase in representation from medical science, public health and food science, including a representative from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

On the same bill at the time, Labor senators said:

…there is in theory potential for at least half of the new Board to be made up of members with industry interests.

… … …

The Opposition Senators strongly oppose such an outcome and will not support any restructuring of the Board that results in an increase in the representation of the industry groups that are regulated by FSANZ.

And so, after the Senate's intervention, we arrived at the current board structure: a board structure that Labor helped to create and has supported for 15 years. It should be no surprise then that Labor has objections to the changes to the composition of the board proposed in this bill. The board sets the culture and direction for FSANZ. It is the key decision making body in FSANZ, charged with developing and implementing the food code. It approves the draft variations to the food code and it has a key role in the food safety system across Australia and New Zealand. This bill would make a number of changes principally to the composition of the board and this is a point of contention for the Labor Party. We are concerned that the minister is given discretion to appoint a block of members to the board from a range of expert criteria. These include industry, science and consumer rights.

Labor does not support the bill in its current form and we will seek to amend the bill. Our amendments delete schedule 2 of the bill, where the changes to the composition to the board are contained. If accepted, the board would continue in its current composition. This is because Labor is concerned that there is a reduction in the minimum number of public health, science based and NHMRC positions on the board by half, from four to two, and potentially the new maximum number of appointees from consumer focus rises from one to four. Those from the food industry on the board actually stand to double from two to four, depending of course on the minister's discretion. Potentially, four members out of seven of those ministerial appointees could actually come from industry, the group FSANZ is charged with regulating.

Section 116(1)(c) of the act gives the New Zealand minister the capacity to appoint two members from industry, and section 116(1)(a) permits the chair to be from a food industry background. We are concerned that, however unlikely, there is at least a mathematical possibility that seven members of a twelve-member board could, in fact, come from an industry background.

In evidence heard by the Senate Community Affairs Committee, the Public Health Association of Australia said:

PHAA does not support any reduction in the number of public health/science positions. Such people are the ‘bread and butter’ of the Board and should be increased, not decreased.

The committee also heard that removing the NHMRC nominee from the board is:

…likely to reduce expertise relating to conduct of trials, scientific rigour, the quality of evidence, and a level of independence and objectivity. Choosing a Board member with a science qualification or background or current work within a commercial laboratory is unlikely to cover the independent expertise from a NHMRC nominee.

The concerns raised by the PHAA highlighted that the bill's proposed board composition has the potential to:

1) Have a large number of members with strong industry ties;

2) Diminish the public health perspectives; and

3) Decrease the independence/objective scrutiny of the quality of the science.

I would like to briefly reflect on the passage of this legislation through the House of Representatives. During debate in the other place, we were reminded that the forum on food regulation, which contained representations of Labor states and territories, had agreed to this change. I acknowledge there may well be some difference in views between the jurisdictions. However, I would also make this point: the Australian Senate, indeed the Australian Parliament, is not a rubber stamp for the forum on food regulation. Australian Labor has a genuine concern. Our position remains consistent with our the position we have held over the last 15 years and we will seek to amend the bill accordingly. Should there have been an argument for a change to the composition to the board, the minister has not yet given it. The government has failed to outline a case why this change should occur, and so we cannot support it.

I should point out that Labor does acknowledge that the minister's office provided a one-page extract from the report referred to in the explanatory memorandum. Unfortunately, that briefing note also made reference to 'a number of review participants' which had made various suggestions on the composition of the board. These submissions or the relevant experts of those submissions or even the identity of participants in that review were not released to the opposition. Labor's concerns still stand and we believe the review should be made public or at least available to senators who are being asked to vote legislation informed by its recommendations. Without it we cannot judge the voracity of the claim that these amendments are based on advice unless that advice is released.

As I said at the beginning of this speech, the main job of FSANZ is to ensure that people who eat out are safe and do not get sick because of poor food-handling practices. It is crucial that consumer confidence is maintained in our food regulation system. The perceived change to the independence of the board may undermine confidence in this system.

The FSANZ board, guided by science and informed by industry and consumer needs, gives Australians confidence in our food system. We know that when foodborne disease and illness do happen—and one did occur earlier last year with the foodborne outbreak of hepatitis A in frozen berries—one of the key roles that FSANZ plays, and critically the FSANZ board, is to give confidence to Australians that, whilst there may have been an incident, the system remains safe, independent, and is informed by science and a public health agenda. Australians would be right to question whether a newly structured board with less scientific representation would be equipped to deal with the science that emerges in these cases. I pose the question: would a newly composed board with more representation from industry give more or less confidence to Australians? I think we all know the answer to that in this place.

The amendment that we will move later will ensure that the board will continue with its current composition. Labor cannot support the bill while it includes the measures associated with the board composition and should our amendment fail and the bill remain in its current form, despite the genuine improvements parts of this bill would make to the act, Labor would be unable to support it. We will always act in the best interests of Australians' safety and health when it comes to food regulation and it is disappointing that the government is seeking to make changes to the board in a way that would diminish the evidence-based and scientific approach of its members.

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

I rise today to speak on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill makes a number of amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act of 1991. The FSANZ Act is the act enabling Food Standards Australia New Zealand—more commonly known as FSANZ—the body which develops the food standards code.

The frozen berries incident last year showed just how important strong food regulation is for all Australians. Last year dozens of Australians became ill from hepatitis A from frozen berries that were imported into Australia. It was FSANZ that was responsible for providing advice on the risks to the department of agriculture. We have a quite complex process for regulating our food standards, with an interaction between FSANZ and the department of agriculture. We heard evidence in Senate estimates of the delays in FSANZ providing the risk analysis and how in turn this slowed down crucial work by the department of agriculture.

Australians deserve strong protection on food. While we do have some strong standards, there are still some holes in our process, which was demonstrated very clearly last year during the frozen berries incident. When you pick up a packet of frozen berries, or any other food for that matter, at the supermarket you should not have to worry about whether you might be getting hepatitis A. Australians reacted at that time very strongly and indicated very strongly that they expect very strong standards. That is why strong food regulation is important and that is why we need to make sure that there is strong scrutiny of changes that are made to any of our processes, and that applies to this bill, just as it does to any other bill.

These changes need to be in the best interests of our community. We have some concerns with this bill because we do not think the changes are in the best interests of our community. This bill makes a number of minor administrative changes to the FSANZ Act and those are changes we could support. I will go into some of our concerns in a minute. I will just deal with the minor ones now. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation has changed its name to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. It makes sense to reflect that change in the FSANZ Act, and we of course can support that. However, there are several changes that are not quite so simple. The first of these is the balance of the FSANZ board between industry and consumers. This is a very important issue. There are already many in our community who think there is already too much industry influence on FSANZ and on our food regulation process and our standard-setting process. This bill clearly takes, we believe, a step too far.

The Senate had a long debate about the original bill establishing the FSANZ part of the process. Part of that debate was about what was the right balance on the board, making sure that it was not too strongly influenced by industry and that there was a voice for consumers and independent scientific experts. The food industry should not set its own regulations. As Senator Bob Brown said during the debate:

We are particularly concerned that the legislation be at arms-length from the industry that profits from the development and sale of food to the Australian and New Zealand communities.

That bill was amended in the Senate to make sure that the balance of the board was right and that it was not dominated by industry representatives. That was an appropriate amendment and an important one. It shows the important work, in fact, that we do in this place—making sure that legislation passed by the parliament is in the best interests of the Australian community.

The amendments in this bill will change the balance of the FSANZ board. This is for us an extremely important issue and one that we are concerned about. Under the current provisions in the FSANZ Act the board has 12 members. They include the chair, the Chief Executive Officer of FSANZ, three members nominated by the New Zealand minister, one member nominated by consumer organisations, one member nominated by the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, three members nominated by science and public health entities and two from food industry entities. The bill introduces several changes to the balance on the FSANZ board and this is causing us and stakeholders who have contacted us a lot of concern.

The government's rationale is that these changes are responsive to a review of the FSANZ board appointment process. That report is not publicly available and until late last year we had no way of knowing if the bill really matched the recommendations in that report. However, I do want to thank the Minister for Rural Health, as her office provided an extract of that report to my office. As I understand it, the same extract was provided to the ALP. We have not had access to the full material in the review of the board but we have the recommendation about increasing flexibility in board appointments. While we can in principle support the issue of flexibility where it is useful for a particular process, there is a trade-off—and this is an important one. Where we have increased flexibility it is important to make sure that we do not lose sight of what is important. In this case we believe we would.

In this case what is important is making sure that FSANZ regulates the food industry in the best interests of the Australian and New Zealand communities and of Australian and New Zealand consumers. We believe that means that the composition of the FSANZ board needs to reflect that. It should be balanced and, more importantly, it should ensure that there is strong representation for consumers and for independent scientific experts. It is important that industry representatives not outweigh other voices on the board. As I said, there are already many stakeholders who believe that industry already has too much influence in this process.

The bill makes a number of changes to the composition of the board. The current act specifies a minimum requirement of four individuals nominated by science and public health organisations, two industry representatives and one person from a consumer organisation. It is true that under the bill's proposed section 116A there would be more flexibility for the minister in appointing members of the board. However, that carries with it a risk.

Under the proposed structure there would only be a minimum of two science and public health board members. This would remove the board member nominated by the National Health and Medical Research Council. It would also lower the minimum number of independent experts that need to be on the board. It could mean that there would be only two scientific experts appointed, which is down from the current minimum of four. We are talking about long-term, so with all the best will in the world the current minister could do the right thing. But into the future there is no guarantee that the minister would not increase the number of food industry representatives. In fact, the number could double from two to four. We oppose this change in the balance of FSANZ and we want to ensure the current balance.

We have amendments that are, I think, identical to the ALP amendments. We have amendments to this bill and we will be opposing this bill if these changes are not made. We have other amendments that I will go into in a minute, but we feel very strongly about this. It is critical to our ongoing process to ensure that we maintain the best standards possible in this country, so we will not be supporting this bill if our amendments are not successful.

I also want to speak to a second point about referrals to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. This is an important procedural issue and it has important implications. The government's bill would amend the definition of appropriate government agency in the act and as part of that it would remove the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator from that list. As a submission by the Department of Health explains:

The FSANZ Act requires FSANZ to notify appropriate government agencies about various matters related to the making, reviewing and varying of food regulatory measures, such as food standards.

By removing the GTR from the list of appropriate government agencies, FSANZ would no longer be required to notify government agencies. The rationale is to provide FSANZ with more flexibility in its processes—and I bet that is just what they are like. However, in relation to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, section 19 of the FSANZ Act currently provides FSANZ with the flexibility it needs. Section 19 of the FSANZ Act says that where FSANZ is required to give a notice to the GTR, FSANZ is only required to give the notice if the food regulatory measure relates to the measure that is or contains a GMO or GM product. However, as the submission by the Department of Health says, after the bill's amendments:

FSANZ would have to notify the GTR where FSANZ considers that the GTR has a particular interest in the relevant matter, for example, where the application or proposal relates to genetically modified food.

This means that FSANZ would still have basically the same requirements whether or not the GTR is included.

However, if the GTR is removed from the list of appropriate government agencies then a consequence is that GMO, and the GMO product, will no longer be defined in the FSANZ Act. There are a number of submissions to the committee that were concerned about this particular aspect of the bill. We understand from these submissions that once the definition is removed then a narrow definition in the Food Standards Code will apply. This narrow definition will not capture the new types of GM technology.

We believe in a strong science based approach to regulation that protects human health. Because of that, it is important to have a definition that is broad enough to capture new changes in technology. In particular, if there are any challenges to the Food Standards Code then it will be important to have an appropriate definition in the act. That is why we do not support removing the Gene Technology Regulator from the list of appropriate government agencies. Our amendment keeps the Gene Technology Regulator as an appropriate government agency. FSANZ will still have the appropriate flexibility under section 19 of the act. This will also retain a definition for GM products and GMO in the FSANZ Act.

There is another change in this bill which gives FSANZ more flexibility in preparing regulatory impact statements. Currently, the FSANZ Act requires FSANZ to prepare a regulatory impact statement when a number of changes are made. A regulatory impact statement can often be a very useful document. It can provide a clear idea of what the different policy options are and how the change in policy will impact different groups. In some cases it is the clearest analysis of a policy that the government publishes. The bill lowers the threshold for when a regulatory impact statement—commonly known as a RIS—is required; specifying that FSANZ must include one 'if appropriate'. However, it is not clear what 'if appropriate' means. In other words, they can pick and choose when they do it, whether FSANZ can decide or if there is a guideline.

Both the Public Health Association of Australia and the Australian Food and Grocery Council noted concerns in relation to this change. It is important to recognise that this change takes place in a larger context. This is a government that has in a number of ways, and in multiple areas, been avoiding transparency. When I asked for a copy of the regulatory impact statement for another measure—the so-called cashless welfare card—I was told that it was not available because it was a cabinet-in-confidence document. But previous governments have regularly published regulatory impact statements, or RISs, often in the explanatory memorandums.

We see a similar pattern in other areas. This government has tightened the responses to freedom of information requests. For example, it has tightened controls on what public servants are allowed to say on social media. And the government has taken even more information out of the budget papers than previous governments have. Is this part of a pattern that the government is trying to establish by lowering this threshold or is it just trying to make things easier for FSANZ?

RISs are important documents. These are important changes. They will potentially have significant impacts on the way our food protection system in this country works. I have amendments around these issues in terms of the regulation impact statement and dealing with notifications of appropriate government agencies. We want to see stronger requirements in the FSANZ Act to make sure that there is appropriate analysis when FSANZ makes changes to regulation.

We are particularly concerned about the board changes, about the changes that particularly relate to how GMOs are potentially assessed and about the regulation impact statements. We have amendments on these three key areas. We believe they would improve the bill and address a number of concerns that were raised in submissions to the inquiry. Previous Senate debates and amendments have improved FSANZ legislation. We think these amendments would do the same thing.

While we support some of the minor administration changes, we cannot support this bill if our amendments are not supported, because we think the changes the government wants will undermine our food standard process in Australia, when Australians clearly want strong food regulation in this country. We know the risks if we do not have strong food protections. We are deeply concerned that, even if the minister in her response and her wrapping up of the second reading debate on this bill makes commitments that in fact industry would not get control, she cannot bind future governments. There is a risk here that is not worth taking. We will be strongly debating the issue around this board and, as I said, we will not support this legislation unless our amendments get up. Unfortunately, I cannot commend this bill to the chamber, because there are issues that need addressing.

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

I share the concerns of Senator Siewert and the Australian Greens in relation to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. The future of Australian agriculture, one of our great growth industries, is food production. Our clean, green image and high standards mean we can export our clean, green products around the world and of course consume them right here, rather than having products of an inferior standard coming from imports. There are some imports where I have concerns about antibiotics, E. coli and the like, and I think that our current system of screening those products is not adequate.

I also want to raise sovereignty as a preliminary issue. Back in 2012, the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, supported a bill that I put up for palm oil labelling. We know that that is very significant in terms of both environmental grounds and the impact on orangutans in Indonesia and Malaysia in particular. The bill simply sought to provide information for consumers as to whether a product had palm oil in it or not and whether it was sustainably sourced palm oil. The coalition, to their absolute credit, when they were in opposition supported that bill. It passed the Senate and languished in the House of Representatives. The reason given for the coalition expressing concerns about pushing forward with that bill was that, under the FSANZ regulatory framework, we needed to get the permission of the Kiwis—of the New Zealand government, the New Zealand parliament—in respect of that.

I think that if the Australian parliament passes legislation on food labelling we should not have to go to another country to get their permission to tick off whether we want to implement those laws for our citizens. I think one of the fundamental flaws of FSANZ, of the framework, is this requirement, this right of veto that one country has over another. If the New Zealanders want to have a particular system of food labelling or to have a particular law for, say, palm oil labelling, we should not be able to veto it, and vice versa. I think there is a very real issue about Australia's sovereignty, and I think we have gone down the wrong path by allowing another country to veto the most basic laws about food labelling and giving information to Australian consumers. That is something that ought to be on the agenda and that we ought to revisit because we have made a mistake. As a nation, we have been blindly following free trade dogma and in the process have given away our sovereignty on something as basic and fundamental as food labelling and food certification.

This bill makes changes to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act, the FSANZ Act, to change the way the board is selected and to change the name of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation—quite a mouthful. This bill also seeks to change the composition of the FSANZ board and the way board members are appointed, and I share Senator Siewert's concerns about that.

I think that I too cannot support this bill in its current form. It is going in the wrong direction from what the overwhelming majority of Australians want. Australians want to have a sensible, robust, food-labelling regime that protects Australian consumers and enhances the reputation and the growth prospects of the food industry and food producers in this country.

These measures in the bill may seem straightforward on the face of it, but, together with changes to how genetically modified crops are defined and the circumstances in which the Gene Technology Regulator is notified of a new GM product, and removing the requirement that new food standards be published in state newspapers, for instance, they give me serious concerns about the intent of this bill. While I do not agree with all of the concerns of Friends of the Earth about this bill, I agree with them that the government's explanatory memorandum does not set out a clear justification for the changes in the bill and that it does not appear to have done much in the way of consultation with the states and New Zealand. This is not a good way to go about changes to the food standards body for Australia and New Zealand since 1991.

As I said, I think in some respects we are worse off. We could still have cooperation with our closest friends, the New Zealanders, but that does not mean we should give away our rights to sovereignty. We could have a body in place that says we cooperate and exchange information. But one country should not veto the other when it comes to these food standards. This is a body about which I have expressed misgivings in the past.

Last year, the government rejected a bill I introduced with a number of my crossbench colleagues that would have required restaurants and takeaway shops to tell customers whether its fish was imported or Australian—modelled on a very successful Northern Territory bill, a bill that would have given consumers real choice, real information and, in the process, created thousands of jobs in the aquaculture and fishing sectors in this nation. The government, whose senators had supported the bill at the committee stage, said it could not support it because of the:

… legislative consultative process currently provided for in the FSANZ Act ... enforcement is undertaken in collaboration between, and relying on, state and territory legislation in Australia as well as the New Zealand government.

My problem with FSANZ is that it can be relied upon by the government of the day as a reason not to do something as obvious as tell a restaurant or a takeaway shop's customers whether the fish they are purchasing for immediate consumption is Australian or not. Yet, in a supermarket you know where your fish comes from, but when you step outside that supermarket and go 20 metres down the road, immediately outside the supermarket, you have no idea if you are buying fish for consumption. This is an example where FSANZ has been an impediment to a sensible and practical form of consumer information that would have been good for consumers and been very, very good for employment in the seafood and aquaculture sectors in this country. This is a question of sovereignty and it is simply not good enough for the government of the day to sit on its hands and say it is against the FSANZ process. They cannot hide behind that.

Questions were also raised about the food safety regime in Australia in 2015 when imported frozen berries from China were suspected to have triggered a hepatitis A outbreak. FSANZ had deemed imported frozen berries 'low risk' and after a review ordered by the government, and also by FSANZ, it confirmed in May last year that imported frozen berries should remain as low risk and only be subject to occasional testing. No further action was taken. This is the agency to which this bill seeks to make changes, but it is not making the right changes. I think that these are retrograde changes.

Managing Australian food safety and food labelling is a sovereign power of the Australian government and the FSANZ Act in its current form has set up a regime which actually takes away from Australian sovereignty. I think this bill in its current form will make it much worse. I now go to the details of the bill before the Senate.

The bill removes the definition of a genetically modified organism, GMO, and GM product, and removes the currently strict requirement that FSANZ notify the Gene Technology Regulator of any new food regulatory measure relating to a food that contains a GMO or GM product. I can see why groups such as Friends of the Earth Australia have suggested that this looks like deregulation of GMOs by stealth, and I support the precautionary principle in relation to this. We need to be very cautious about what the impact of these changes will be. I also respect the right of those farmers who want to have GMO-free crops because there is, for instance, a marketing advantage in Japan and in Europe in relation to those crops.

I think that the definition being removed is quite broad. It states:

… any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.

It is the same definition as in the Gene Technology Act 2000. Compared to the definition of GMO in the Food Standards Code, which is part of FSANZ and set to be updated in March next year, it is much broader:

… recombinant DNA techniques that alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organism.

Now, it is not at all clear to me that the definition is robust enough to capture the latest GMO technologies and, if so, then I have real problems accepting the bill in its current form because it does away with the earlier definition. On the face of it, the existing definition has the benefit of being in plain language that is easily understood.

Other aspects of the bill also suggest a lessening and loosening of accountability. FSANZ will no longer have to publicise its food standards in the press, rather only putting them on its website. This is a fundamental roll-back in a simple transparency measure. It should not be in the bill, in my view.

Finally, the loosening of the processes around selection of the FSANZ board, while making it perhaps more streamlined and less onerous for the government, has not received the support of the Public Health Association of Australia—surely, a body that the FSANZ board should have the support of. The problem that the Public Health Association has identified is that the categories for the different board members are just too loosely defined in the fields of science, public health and the food industry. As the Public Health Association of Australia says, the risk is that the FSANZ board could become one-sided. The association states:

The decision-makers within FSANZ, the Board members, play a critical role in influencing the food supplies in Australia and New Zealand, and hence are key decision-makers in relation to public health. It is therefore essential that Board members have strong backgrounds in public health and nutrition, said the … Association.

In conclusion, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I will not oppose it going to the committee stage. I think it is important that we debate these important issues, but I believe this bill waters down accountability around GMOs in this country and opens up the board to members with less of the expertise it needs to do its job. Ultimately, one of the great growth industries in this country is our clean, green reputation in food technology and food production, and I think that this bill will arguably go against a great growth industry of which this nation can be justifiably proud.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Before I talk on the bill, can I congratulate Minister Nash on the work she has done in FSANZ over the time that she has been in charge. It is not an easy body to be involved with. There are a lot of different and competing views in that organisation. But I am proud of the way the Commonwealth's representative has handled the job. So congratulations, Minister.

I am certainly no expert on genetic modification of foods, but I always wonder about foods that are sent to countries where there is real starvation and real problems in getting any sort of food and which seem to be blocked because of a view on genetic modification of foods. I am pleased to see the Greens are rethinking their standard opposition to genetically modified foods and I am pleased to see the new Greens leader does not believe genetically modified crops pose a significant risk to human health. Senator Di Natale has said that the literature so far around the issue of health has not produced evidence of widespread and significant harms. I am hopeful that the Greens might be taking a more sensible view on the issue. I understand the point that the previous speaker made about Australia's reputation for clean and green foods. I agree that is something that we need always to cherish, nurture and promote, but I am sure that in this country we are able to distinguish them and have arrangements in place where we can use genetic modification where it is useful to mankind but at the same time maintain the regulatory regimes that allow us to promote Australian produce, particularly in Asia, as clean and green.

This bill consolidates a number of issues with the food standards organisation that required attention. It relates to a competitive selection process, such as external advertising, which under the bill can occur simultaneously with the existing nomination process when recruiting for each vacant board position on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand board. I think that is something that is worthwhile and does help and should be supported by the Senate. I understand that in relation to consumer rights, science, public health and food industry board member positions this legislation amends the compositional requirements and appointment process in accordance with some recommendations endorsed by a forum that looked into this whole issue. The amendments proposed in the Food Standards Australia New Zealand amendment bill were proposed for introduction in the autumn sittings, but were postponed and have been consolidated into this bill. These amendments have been set out in a single food standards amendment bill, which we are dealing with at the present time. The bill makes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act to reflect the proposed change of name from the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to the forum. It makes amendments to improve the clarity and operation of the legislation. Those amendments are intended to have regulatory efficiency and to provide greater clarification for businesses and for Food Standards Australia New Zealand by removing ambiguity and improving consistency in the way in which the act outlines procedures for consideration of food regulatory measures.

This is not a highly controversial bill, I would have thought, but it is one that requires the support of the Senate. Trying to read through the amendments in the act, I concede it is very technical, but I understand that the amendments are moved for the right reasons. They should be supported by the Senate.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand does a good job, generally speaking. I am concerned, however, in relation to what I am told is a problem that that organisation causes in relation to the labelling of seafood. More than 10 years ago—almost 15 years ago—the Australian government introduced regulations to provide that seafood sold at retail outlets in Australia had to be labelled as to its origin. Prior to that, you would go into your local supermarket and there was fish for sale, but you would have no idea whether it was wild caught Australian fish, farmed Australian fish or imported from overseas. Fortunately, the fisheries minister at the time, who was a pretty good guy, as I recall, changed the arrangements so that, in supermarkets at least, fish for retail sale had to be labelled. So if you go and do the shopping, as I occasionally do, you can see that the seafood in the display cabinet is barramundi that is wild caught in Australia or barramundi that is farmed in Australia or prawns that are caught and processed not in Australia but in Vietnam. There is nothing wrong with imported fish as long as Australians know and understand what they are buying. You will find that a lot of imported fish, such as vannamei prawns and basa, a catfish sort of thing that I think is produced in Thailand, is much cheaper than Australian fish. If people want to buy that that is fine, as long as they are well aware of what they are buying. That is why I think the move by the Australian government some time ago to make it compulsory to label where fish comes from was an important initiative. It has worked well and, as I understand it, has not caused any real problems with the supermarket retailers.

Australia has some wonderful fisheries in those few fisheries that are left. If the Greens had their way, there would not be any Australian fish caught in our country. The Greens seem hell-bent on shutting down every part of Australian waters that still produce fresh seafood.

At the moment up my way we are dealing with a marine protected area—an initiative, I might say, of the Howard government. Under the Labor Party, with Greens urging, before the last election, they were going to put in some plan for the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea marine protected areas, which would have effectively stopped the very small amount of fishing that occurs in those areas. Fortuitously, the coalition made a promise before the last election that we would review the guidelines for that marine protected area, and I understand that process has been continuing.

I can tell the Senate that there is a new fishery out there. It is always going to be a very small fishery, but it is being developed by very serious fishermen who have a scientific background and who want to ensure that fish can be caught sustainably there. They are giving the Australian public the opportunity to have fresh seafood on their table. That is very important not only from an economic point of view but also from a health point of view. Fish is a commodity that, regrettably, Australians do not eat enough of. One of the reasons for that is a lot of the fish that is available in Australia is, of necessity, imported—the majority of fish eaten in Australia is imported. We should be encouraging the Australian industry rather than denigrating it, as very often happens—particularly by the Greens political party.

We have the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which is made up of good fisheries regulators and scientists. They very carefully monitor our fisheries and our waters to make sure that anything that is done in our waters is done sustainably. But we then have American environmental groups, like the Pew organisation, coming in—having ruined their own country—trying to tell Australia how we should be managing our fisheries and our waters. It is hypocrisy to the highest degree. The day that Australian scientists and regulators need some American environmental organisation—who are funded by oil companies—coming in to tell them what to do is the day that Australia should give up. I know that Australia will never give up and, therefore, I hope that the Australian government will ignore the urgings of the Pew organisation and the Greens political party when it comes to shutting down productive fisheries in Australia.

Australians deserve to have fresh fish on our table. We cannot do that if the fishing grounds are continually locked off. Our fishing grounds and waters in Australia are very carefully controlled and monitored by professional regulators and scientists to make sure that they are sustainable. We do not need the advice or the urgings of some third-rate American environmental organisation trying to tell our scientists and our regulators how to manage Australian waters.

What concerns me most about FSANZ and food labelling—and labelling of fish in particular—is that it is hard to get to the bottom of the issue. Perhaps, privately, the minister might be able to elucidate this some time. I would hope that what we do with fish in the retail area—ensuring that it is labelled as to country of origin—will happen in restaurants. If you go to a restaurant and order any sort of fish meal, you do not know whether it comes from Australia or from Vietnam or from the sewers of some South-East Asian country. You simply cannot find that out. You can ask the waiter, and I guarantee they will always say, 'Yes, this is Australian fish, Sir,' but sometimes you have suspicions that it is not.

I cannot understand why we do not require restaurants to label their menus with what the fish is that they are selling. I understand this happens in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has this as a territory regulation, within the borders of course of the Northern Territory. They do have that requirement. If you go to a restaurant in the Northern Territory, you will find that fish is labelled. The menu will tell you where the fish comes from. I understand that each state government could similarly regulate within their own borders, but it seems to me that this should be done Australia-wide.

When I have inquired about it, I have been told that it is FSANZ that are the problem. Some people say it is the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association of Australia, but I doubt that—although I have not made the inquiry myself. Although they may have to change menus, in this day and age of computers menus are printed on the spot as people walk in the door. I do not see that as a problem for the catering and restaurant industry. It would mean that people would have knowledge of what they are buying when they order a fish meal at a restaurant

Very often my experience is that good fish meals do cost a bit more, but if you know where the fish comes from you then have the choice, as an Australian, on whether you want to buy fish that you know is fresh caught in Australia or pay a little bit less and perhaps have an imported species—as long as you know.

I would be hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we can get Australian regulations that require restaurants and fish shops to tell customers where the fish comes from. You can walk into a fish and chip shop and get some battered fish, which is not healthy but always tasty, but you never really know what is under the batter. But we could regulate Australia wide to say, 'You are required to tell people; by all means have imported fish and have it a little bit cheaper, but give consumers the option of knowing what they buy.' When I raised this with the former fisheries minister—without putting words in his mouth—my understanding was that it was Food Standards Australia New Zealand who were the problem with regulating labelling of the origin of fish in restaurants throughout Australia and New Zealand. I do not understand why—it is probably a bit too technical for me—but it seems to me that, on the face of it, there is no valid reason why restaurants and retail fast food outlets in Australia should not be required to label fish so that we know whether it is Australian caught or imported fish. I hope Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the forum under its new name, with the greater flexibility this bill will give them, will be able to address those issues in a positive way.

With that, I do, as I mentioned previously, support the contents and the purpose of the bill and urge the Senate to pass it.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution to the debate. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 amends the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, the FSANZ Act. This legislation has been prepared after consultation with the governments of all states and territories and New Zealand. In summary, the amendments to the FSANZ Act include updates to the FSANZ Act to reflect current operations of Food Standards Australia New Zealand; a name change to the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, the forum, which was previously known as the Legislation and Governance Forum on Food Regulation; improvements in the clarity and operation of the legislation, including in describing the relationship between the forum and FSANZ, such as when the forum can request FSANZ to undertake work and provide information to assist it to make relevant decisions; and describing when FSANZ must publicly notify the approval of a draft standard or draft variation.

There are also amendments intended to improve regulatory efficiency and provide greater clarification for businesses and FSANZ by removing uncertainty and improving consistency in the way in which the FSANZ Act outlines procedures for consideration of food regulatory measures. The current FSANZ Act requires FSANZ to consult with specified government agencies in undertaking its processes, which means that FSANZ must consult with over 20 agencies on issues that may not be relevant to them. This can delay processes and introduce inefficiencies. The bill amends the definition of 'appropriate government agency' to allow FSANZ to take a more targeted approach to consultation processes and expedite its work. Under the bill, 'appropriate government agency' would include the following: the relevant department of the Commonwealth, state or territory or New Zealand administered by a minister who is a member of the forum; any other body that has an officer on the Food Regulation Standing Committee; and any other body or officer of the Commonwealth, state or territory or New Zealand that FSANZ considers has a particular interest in the relevant matter.

The bill will provide flexibility for FSANZ to consult the Gene Technology Regulator on applications involving gene technology and related technologies. Greater flexibility relates to FSANZ notifying the Gene Technology Regulator about applications involving technologies that may not currently fit the definition of a GMO or GM product but are closely related. It is about future-proofing the notification process.

Several amendments in schedule 1 of the bill seek to clarify that FSANZ is only required to include a regulation impact statement, or RIS, in a report required by the FSANZ act if a RIS is applicable. In other words, FSANZ must include a RIS where the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the OBPR, requires FSANZ to prepare a RIS. A RIS may not be required for proposals or applications assessed by FSANZ where the impact of the proposed regulatory measure is of a minor or machinery nature. However, irrespective of whether OBPR requires FSANZ to prepare a RIS, the FSANZ Act still requires FSANZ to provide a summary of its cost-benefit analysis.

The current FSANZ Act also limits the organisations from which nominations for the FSANZ board can be sought. The bill includes several amendments relating to forum-endorsed recommendations regarding the composition of the FSANZ board, which include amendments that ensure that there are board members with expertise in consumer rights and consumer affairs policy in Australia, as well as board members with one or more fields of expertise in science, public health and the food industry. The amendments allow the minister to undertake the current nomination process, a competitive selection process or both. I intend to undertake both processes simultaneously for each vacant board member position to be filled to maximise the field for each nomination.

The government is streamlining the FSANZ Act to remove unnecessary red tape and to improve and reflect current food regulatory processes. Proposed amendments to the FSANZ Act will require consequential amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Regulations 1994. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.