Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.