Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Nash today. Senator Nash's answers to questions today will give no confidence, no comfort, to the public health sector, and they will be of concern to those in the food manufacturing sector. At the heart of this concern is the confidence of the community in the decision-making process of Minister Nash and her office. This is a question of integrity in the process of decision making. It gives me no comfort to ask questions on this matter—but it is a question of integrity. It was very disappointing that the answers to questions had to be corrected by Senator Nash in the chamber yesterday.

Yesterday, Senator Wong asked a series of questions of Senator Nash, to which she said that there was no connection with the food industry. Then, according to Senator Nash, at the first opportunity—which was many hours later—she came into the chamber, at around nine o'clock last night, and, in her terms, gave 'additional information'. She advised the Senate that her chief of staff did have a connection with Australian Public Affairs and that, because of that previous position, he has a shareholding in the company. As Senator Faulkner has quite rightly pointed out, the code of conduct requires a divestment of any shareholding—not a promise that says, 'We will not lobby you,' but a divestment of that shareholding. The question that we are addressing here today is, frankly, not one of remuneration but one of influence. The question goes to whether or not there was undue influence over the process of establishing the website that would assist consumers make better decisions about what food products they want to buy. That is the question at stake here.

I was particularly concerned today when Senator Nash said, in answer to my question, that in December last year she was fully aware of her chief of staff's former activities. I may not be accurately quoting her—I tried to write it down—but that is the intent of what she said. This should have set off alarm bells, not at the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation in December last year but at the point he was employed. This is when she should have known that this gentleman had an absolute conflict in terms of his previous employment and that he had not divested his shareholding. She should have known everything about the relationship between her chief of staff and an advocacy company that was advocating on behalf of one section of the food industry. It should not have been something which, according to her yesterday, she did not have every detail of. She should have been absolutely across this. She knew this was potentially a problem. She should have been more diligent, firstly, in the employment of the gentleman and, secondly, in making sure that any conflict was completely removed.

I am concerned about what this means for the confidence of the public health sector in the delivery of food policy in our country. We need to have a system that ensures the best available evidence is provided to consumers, particularly about manufactured food on the grocery store shelves. Public Health Association head Michael Moore—and I am quoting from the Canberra Timessaid it was 'inconceivable' that the website was only a draft. This was in response to the assertion that the Department of Health people said that it was only a draft and so it had to be pulled down. He said:

I looked at it very carefully, and there was nothing that struck me about it as being a draft. It just doesn't make sense.

(Time expired)