Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule.

Labor's amendments, modest but important, delete the proposed changes within the bill to the composition of the board. If the amendments are accepted, the board will continue in its current composition—finely balanced and independent. If you want a reason why it is necessary to retain the independence of the board, you need look no further than the contribution from the member for Lyons. He was passionate but he was ill informed. He criticised the food standards authority, and the unknown bureaucrats who work within the organisation, for knocking off his passionate support—and that of the people he presumably represents—for cannabis which is produced as a food product. I can inform the member for Lyons and the House that the board of FSANZ, and indeed the expert bodies, have referred to the ministerial council propositions which would authorise the production and sale of cannabis for food products within Australia. It was the ministerial council which knocked off this proposal. And that in a nutshell demonstrates the importance of having a proper tension between experts and elected politicians who sit on the ministerial council as opposed to the scientists, the health experts and the industry experts who sit on the board. That demonstrates in a nutshell why that is necessary, because were it not for the scientific expertise and the health expertise of the people on the board that proposition would never have got to the ministerial council. It would have been killed before it got there. It proves in a nutshell why we need to have independent expertise across a range of areas not subject to the appointment and discretion of the minister, whoever he or she may be from day to day. We argue that the current arrangements are serving us well.

The assistant minister argues that somehow in opposing the amendments before the House we will do some damage to our relations with the states and our friends in New Zealand. Nothing could be further from the truth. I say this: we have worked very cooperatively with the Assistant Minister for Health on most matters that have come before this House, and I hope that we are able to do that into the future as well. As an alternative government and when in government, we have also worked cooperatively with state and territory members to the intergovernmental agreement and with New Zealand and with our counterparts on the ministerial council. But we are a sovereign parliament. For the assistant minister to stand there and somehow threaten us and say that we are not entitled to represent our democratic rights and speak against and vote against a proposition that comes before this House when we believe that it is not in the public interest, frankly, is breathtaking.

I say to those members on that side of the House and I say to all government members: do the simple thing. We support 50 per cent of what you are proposing in his legislation. If you agree to our amendments, it will sail through this place, it will sail through the other place and the changes that you propose and claim you really need will be passed into law. But in no contribution that we have heard in the House—not the contribution from the member for Lyons, not the contribution from the minister in her second reading speech, not the contribution from my good friend the parliamentary secretary—have we seen a justification for the provisions that we object to.

What is the evil that they are attempting to address through this legislation? We are as yet ignorant of the malady that they are attempting to redress. We argue that the current provisions have served us well, they should remain settled, and if the government agree to our amendments the bill will sail through this House and the other place and we can get on with the important business of protecting Australians and the food that they eat.

See this speech in context