Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Hansard source

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 seeks to implement a reform agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. Specifically, these amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 seek the recognition by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, residue risk assessment and the promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—the food code. What that means is a reduction of duplication. At present, we have two bodies. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority sets maximum residue limits and has a prescribed use for using pesticides specifically, so that they can be used in a safe way on crops. But in order for food to enter the food supply, it is Food Standards Australia New Zealand that actually sets what might be different maximum residue limits.

There is a compliance cost associated with this for primary producers. This is a very sensible reform. The present situation is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA prescribe separate limits on agriculture veterinary chemical residues in food. So where a primary producer may use a particular chemical product on their crops and livestock in accordance with the relevant APVMA product registration or permit, they might not legally be able to sell the treated produce where there is no corresponding MRL in the food code preventing its sale. So this bill streamlines the current regulatory process. It reduces the regulation on business by government and removes duplication.

These reforms stem from a Howard government initiative designed to reduce red tape on business. In 2005, a task force was established to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from Commonwealth government regulation. Its final report recommended that COAG should establish a high-level task force to develop an integrated national chemicals policy. At the time, the coalition recognised that there were overlaps and inconsistencies in a number of regulatory hotspots, in particular chemicals and plastics.

The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry into chemicals and plastics regulation. They released an interim report which recommended, among other things, avoiding duplication of the setting of MRLs by Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the APVMA by enabling the MRLs which are established by the APVMA to be automatically incorporated into the food code.

This Productivity Commission recommendation was adopted by COAG on 3 July 2008. The coalition supports this bill. It will be welcomed by primary producers and it will be welcomed by groups such as the National Farmers Federation, by pastoralists and by graziers associations. Our only question is: why has it taken two years to get to this point of actually presenting the legislation to parliament? Why two years after a no-brainer? The Productivity Commission said, ‘This can be done quickly,’ and COAG agreed, yet it has taken two years to get to this point. Perhaps this is one of the bills which were slowed up when Kevin Rudd was in his control freak phase. The government needs to explain why it has delayed two years in implementing these reforms.

This bill was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament and was referred to a Senate committee to allow stakeholders an opportunity to put forward any concerns they may have had, including any public health and safety concerns. Based on the evidence provided during that Senate inquiry, the committee was satisfied that the proposed legislation would not increase the risk to human health or safety. In fact, it was the committee’s opinion that there would be an overall gain as a result of streamlining the current regulatory process.

As it stands now, stakeholders support the legislative change to remove the inconsistencies between those two regulatory bodies with regard to the MRLs. This is about synchronising the two regulatory systems to reduce the regulatory burden on primary producers without any trade-off in human safety. This bill achieves that end. The coalition continues to support improving efficiency of government regulation and reducing red tape on small businesses, in particular primary producers. That is why we support this bill.

See this speech in context