Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to begin the second reading debate on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008. However, I should say at the outset that the news I have just received is that the government is not going to allow the potential for the bill to come to a second reading vote at the end of today or on Monday morning. That decision follows a period of requests to the government and the opposition, and it flies in the face of proper process here. This is private member’s time to deal with important legislation.

I have in particular, along with my Green colleagues, been extremely reasonable with the government in facilitating its important legislation through the Senate. This is the first piece of private member’s legislation for the year and it is important legislation. There are other bills which are quite important to be dealt with by the Senate lined up and the government is simply going to filibuster so that this bill cannot get a second reading vote. The request was to get it through the parliament, but the government does not want to show a vote on it. I take that extremely seriously as it is not a frivolous matter. It is high time the Senate took private member’s legislation seriously. I say to the government that there will be ramifications. The cooperation goes both ways. This is totally unfair; it is wrong to be treating private member’s time in this fashion.

I think it has been a major mistake by strategists in the Labor Party and there will be consequences. It is a very serious slight to the Senate, and to those who take this legislation seriously, that the government has decided it simply is not going to allow this bill to come to a vote. The government is, apparently, going to add extra speakers just to fill up time if we get towards finalising the debate by 6.30 pm. I object to that and there will be consequences.

That said, this bill is for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 to encourage healthier eating habits among children and to prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements for junk food during certain times and for related purposes. I had the second reading speech circulated when I introduced this bill last year. I am not going to re-read it all but I did want to read a couple of sentences from it.

The bill revises the bill by the same title first introduced by Democrat leader Senator Lyn Allison in 2006. I again acknowledge her long work in this area and, indeed, continuing interest in the area. The bill is to ensure that the advertising of junk food and beverages on television during children’s viewing times is disallowed as is the advertising of alcoholic drinks in those times.

What is important about this is that obesity is a problem the parliament can no longer afford to ignore. According to the Australian Medical Association the rise in childhood obesity may, for the first time in Australian history, result in a decline in the life expectancy of newborns. Access Economics estimates the financial costs of obesity in our country in 2008 at $8.2 billion per annum. That report calculates the net cost of lost wellbeing, including the dollar value of the burden of disease on individuals as a result of conditions associated with obesity such as diabetes, heart disease and various types of cancer, as well as lost productivity, adding up to a total financial burden of $58 billion a year.

Childhood obesity is a complex issue with many causal factors. An advertising ban alone will not eliminate the problem of obesity but it is a sensible first step that has the support of health experts including doctors, community groups and, most importantly, parents. A study of parental awareness and attitudes reported in the August 2008 issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health found that there was widespread parental concern about food advertising aimed at children and strong support for tighter restrictions. Almost 80 per cent of respondents were concerned about the volume of advertisements and 68 per cent were concerned about the methods used to market unhealthy food to children. Eighty-seven per cent of people supported a ban on unhealthy food advertising during children’s viewing hours. The survey, which was in fact in 2007 and was commissioned by the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children, found that 90 per cent of parents agreed that advertising food high in fat, sugar and salt directly to children was unconscionable, and in 2004 an Australia Institute study found that 86 per cent of people wanted more limits on advertising to children.

I quote from the Greens dissenting report to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which examined this legislation:

There is no dispute that obesity in Australia is a serious problem. The Committee majority report notes the following facts: Australia now has the fifth highest rate of adult obesity amongst OECD countries; that 17 percent of children aged between 2 -16 are overweight and 6 percent are obese; there is a demonstrated link between childhood and adult obesity; the cost of adult obesity in Australian in 2008 is estimated at $8.3 billion; and there are ‘negative effects of unhealthy food advertising to children’.

That included part of the majority finding. The aim of this bill is to address this massive health, social, economic and environmental problem, not totally but by attacking one of the fundamental problems connected with increased obesity, which is the purveying of junk food, sometimes through saturation advertising aimed at children in their own television viewing hours. I might add that studies show that children up to the age of 12 cannot discern between advertising and fact. The advertisers know that and, as we all know in this place, employ psychologists to manipulate children, and the pester factor children have on parents, to sell their unhealthy products to those children.

The committee had numerous submissions, and witnesses to the inquiry identified that the current timing of restrictions does not capture the broadcast periods when high numbers of children are viewing. The preponderance of evidence was for extending the restricted times outlined in this bill to the period from 6 am to 9.30 pm. I flag here that in the committee stage of the bill, which the government has now effectively blocked, we would have proposed amendments to the bill to incorporate that position.

Let me finish by saying this is important legislation. It is aimed at one of the insidious factors which are increasing obesity, the toll on health, the cost to the economy and the erosion of the wellbeing of individuals in Australia. It is important legislation. I thought the government would have a more mature, reflective and accommodating approach to this legislation. It does not. I repeat that this is a very serious affront to the Senate by the government. We have to take it as an indication that the government does not see the rest of the Senate as having the importance it does have and, in particular, does not see this legislation is being as important as it is to the Australian people. It is wrong on both counts. Its behaviour on this matter is way below the standard I would expect of serious consideration of serious legislation by the Rudd government in 2009.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008 because it gives this chamber a chance to consider a very important issue in our community: childhood obesity and its causes. The Rudd government is very concerned about child health and especially childhood obesity. The government not only is concerned about childhood obesity but is actively working on its causes and especially methods by which it can prevent this significant problem. The government is doing this through a multifaceted approach combining both prevention and regulation. The government is also developing approaches that are evidence based.

One of the main vehicles through which this government action is taking place is the Council of Australian Governments agenda. Through COAG, the government has committed $872 million over six years to preventative health. This represents the largest commitment ever by an Australian government in preventative health. These preventative health interventions will occur through preschools, schools and workplaces. These interventions will be designed to help people modify their lifestyle so they can reduce the risk of chronic disease. This significant contribution, not made by any previous government, comes on top of over $50 million already approved in the Rudd government’s first budget. That $50 million in funding focuses on obesity prevention strategies targeted directly at children. In the context of the bill that we are debating today, I would like to highlight some aspects of this new multifaceted approach.

We have a Healthy Kids Check for all four-year-olds to improve childhood health. This measure will ensure that every four-year-old child in Australia has a basic health check to see if they are healthy, fit and ready to learn when they start school. The Healthy Kids Check will promote early detection of lifestyle risk factors, delayed development and illness, and introduce guidance for healthy lifestyles and early intervention strategies. That is $26.5 million over four years that has been set aside for this important initiative. It will make a significant contribution to identifying risks of obesity in very small children.

The Get set 4 life—habits for healthy kids guide has been developed as an interactive guide that will provide practical information to assist parents to engage with their child to aid the development of healthy eating habits. The guide provides practical information for parents and illustrations which children can relate to. It is designed to support parents and carers with a child’s development and to reinforce the importance of establishing healthy life habits. It also includes a list of useful resources for families to get more information about the health and development of their children—exactly the kinds of skills that families need.

One of the projects which I think is most exciting is the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program, which has $12.8 million over four years. Up to 190 primary schools are receiving a grant of up to $60,000 to build vegetable gardens and kitchen facilities. The program teaches kids to grow their own healthy food, to prepare it and to make better eating choices. Indeed, the schools in which this program already exists find it incredibly worth while. Many of them are in disadvantaged areas. The program is transforming eating choices for kids in those communities.

Another program I particularly like is the Active After-schools Communities program by the Australian Sports Commission, with $12.4 million over four years. This encourages participation in after-school physical activity.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$124 million over four years.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is $124 million. Thank you for your correction, Senator Barnett. Finally, $4.5 million over five years has been allocated to the healthy eating and physical activity guidelines for early childhood settings. This is an important part of our government’s plan for tackling obesity from early childhood. It will develop evidence based guidelines and materials to support healthy eating choices and physical activity in children attending early childhood settings such as kindergartens, child-care centres, preschool and family day care. The guidelines will be linked to the new national quality framework for these services that is to be introduced in July 2009.

This government’s commitment to preventing and ending obesity does not end there. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, has established the important Preventative Health Taskforce. This taskforce provides evidence based advice to the government and others on preventative health programs and strategies. It reports directly to the health minister. The taskforce has a focus on chronic disease caused by obesity, tobacco and excessive consumption of alcohol. Last year the taskforce, chaired by Professor Rob Moodie, released a discussion paper called Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. The taskforce also released three comprehensive technical reports, on obesity, tobacco and alcohol, for public comment.

The discussion paper is central to the process of engaging in community discussion as part of a national preventative health strategy. The draft strategy is expected to be released for comment shortly before being finalised and handed to the government in June 2009. So, the Rudd government already has a comprehensive package working on obesity prevention, especially for children. The government is making a significant investment in obesity prevention programs, but I acknowledge that this important problem requires more action than this. It also requires regulation.

We already have in place detailed regulatory mechanisms relating to food and beverage advertising. In particular, rules about advertising to children are set out in broadcasting standards and codes. For example, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 provides the system that regulates broadcasting content. Under this free-to-air system, broadcasters must comply with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the children’s television standards. This system requires that broadcasters ensure that appropriate material is broadcast at particular times of the day. This system of time bands aims to help viewers make informed choices about what they watch. It particularly gives parents the opportunity to decide on the suitability of what is broadcast for their children.

The current children’s television standards mean that no commercials can be shown in P periods and each 30 minutes of C period has no more than five minutes of commercials, with the exception of some drama programs. Importantly, the standards are very strict in that advertisements must not have any information that is misleading or just plain wrong about the nutritional value of that product. Under the children’s television standards, no material broadcast during a C period or P period can present images or events which depict unsafe uses of a product or unsafe situations which may encourage children to engage in any activity that is likely to harm them. This is not limited to advertisements but also includes program content. The regulation of content and advertising is also not limited to the two regulatory mechanisms I have already referred to.

The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice has a central role in the regulation of advertising to children. The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice says that advertisements to children for food and beverages:

(a) should not encourage or promote an inactive lifestyle combined with unhealthy eating or drinking habits; and

(b) must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of the product.

So there we have very extensive work that the government is already responsible for and is already doing in relation to obesity prevention in children and the regulation of advertising.

I would now like to talk about some additional aspects that this bill raises. As senators will know, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs presented its report in relation to this bill in December of last year. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented and taking into consideration current government initiatives in this area, the majority report of the committee recommended that the bill not be passed and that the information received by the committee be considered by the National Preventative Health Taskforce in their ongoing work, which is yet to report. The dissenting report from the Greens in relation to this bill stated that this recommendation ignored:

… the evidence and recommendations of the majority of submissions to the inquiry.

The dissenting report concluded that the Greens welcomed:

… the input for all contributors to the inquiry to strengthen and improve this Bill.

The Greens dissenting report did not explicitly state that the majority of submissions favoured the passage of the bill in its current form, but that is the implication. The Greens dissenting report acknowledged that many submissions to the Senate community affairs committee’s inquiry believed that the timing of the restrictions on advertising in the bill were not appropriate. The dissenting report indicated the Greens’ intention to move amendments to the bill to alter the timing of the restrictions in the bill, which they claimed were in line with ‘the preponderant evidence’. In fact, the Greens have moved those amendments. But what exactly is meant by ‘preponderant evidence’ in this context to me is not clear. In fact, a variety of views were expressed in submissions to the community affairs committee in relation to this matter, even from those who supported the broad intent of this legislation. The Greens’ rationale for giving weight to some expert views over others on this matter I do not think has been clearly articulated. Perhaps we will get some response on those issues.

What is not acknowledged in the Greens’ dissenting report is that many of those submissions that supported the overall intent of this bill had reservations about many of the features of the regulatory scheme outlined. They had reservations about features of the regulatory scheme, which I think are not minor but fundamental to the operation of the scheme that the Greens seek to put in place. These reservations did not pertain solely to the timing of the restrictions on advertising in the bill but extended to a range of other matters that are critical to the effective operation of the regulatory scheme outlined in this bill. For example, a number of submissions questioned the effectiveness of regulating TV advertising alone, while other forms of media remained unregulated. According to the majority report, these other media include:

… other broadcast media, internet and mobile phones, print media, promotions and premium offers, venue and outdoor advertising, the use of promotional characters and celebrities, packaging and sponsorships.

We are indeed inundated with all of this advertising in our daily lives. We should not give ourselves a false sense of security that we have dealt with that. It has to be done in a holistic manner. One submission—again a submission that was supportive of the overall intent of this bill—questioned whether exemptions to the restrictions should be at the discretion of the minister. It suggested that any exemptions would be better administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Several submissions—again including submissions that were supportive of the overall intent of this bill—were concerned to ensure that decisions about exemptions were based on transparent and appropriate criteria.

Some submissions questioned whether the decisions regarding exemptions should be based on Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient profiles. Some thought that these standards would need to be refined to distinguish between food and beverages for the purposes of television advertising, as they were not designed for this purpose. They offered several suggestions as to which experts should be involved in this process. I think that would be a worthwhile endeavour. Another submission suggested that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient profiles may not be appropriate for this purpose at all—that is, they might be confusing and subject to loopholes. Indeed, there are a variety of different ways that you can achieve these kinds of objectives. Through the Preventative Health Taskforce, which is yet to report, I would like to see these kinds of holistic measures taken. The submissions suggested alternative criteria based upon ‘foods and beverages that are considered to be basic core foods and part of core food groups’. That is where we want to look to go forward.

Some submissions, even those that were broadly supportive of the bill, raised a range of views in relation to which media should be subject to restrictions; what the timing of those restrictions should be; who should have the power to grant exemptions; what criteria should be used to grant exemptions; and who should be involved in determining, refining or developing the criteria that are used to grant exemptions. Those are rather a lot of questions about the legislation before us. That is what you get when you do not have the opportunity to make legislation through holistic processes.

I can to some extent acknowledge the efforts of the Greens in seeking to bring attention to the very important topic of childhood obesity. However, we need to use all the community resources and agencies of government to put together the kind of package that we need to tackle childhood obesity. That is something the government is already doing. I have to say that I think this is what you get when you are more concerned about making a point than about going through the painstaking process of sifting through the evidence and listening to the full variety of stakeholder views in order to determine the most appropriate and comprehensive public policy response or set of multifaceted responses to a problem. I do not disagree with the Greens’ intent in raising this issue and bringing it before the parliament. However, I counter with the fact that the government is effectively and very appropriately dealing with this issue through the Preventative Health Taskforce and the multifaceted approach I have outlined. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008 and say at the outset: isn’t it bizarre? Here we are in Australia and there is an obesity epidemic. We are one of the four or five fattest nations on earth and simultaneously 30,000 children die every day in the world from a lack of food and clean water—or a lack of water altogether. That particular observation is a stark contrast. It should cause us all to rethink our priorities, strategies and objectives in this great nation, Australia.

On this matter, certainly the objective of Senator Brown and the Greens to address the obesity epidemic is fully supported. But the bill in its current form is not something that I can support, and I will speak to it shortly. I hope each of us in this chamber supports that objective of addressing the obesity epidemic.

Just two weeks ago in budget estimates I asked questions of the Australian Defence Force about obesity. One response was that 14 per cent of the Australian Defence Force are classified as obese. That is a great worry. A report showed that in the US defence force some 4.6 per cent were obese. Those sorts of numbers, which have tripled in terms of the proportion of Australian Defence Force that are obese, are a major cause for concern. I note that the head of the Australian Defence Force indicated that he would take that on board and certainly look at a review of that.

The obesity epidemic in Australia today is serious and it is an issue that we must address as a matter of urgency. It is getting worse, not better. Over 60 per cent of Australian adult males are either overweight or obese and nearly 50 per cent of adult women are either overweight or obese. One in five of our children is overweight and one in 10 is obese. The cost to this nation is not insignificant. In fact, it is outrageously high. I notice that in his second reading speech and again today in his address, Senator Brown referred to the Access Economics report that was delivered just last year. That report was released by Access Economics at my Healthy Lifestyle Forum that I hosted in Hobart—in fact by Dr Lynne Pezzullo, a very professional and outstanding woman. That report indicated that the direct cost of obesity per year to Australia today is over $8 billion. That report indicated the total cost to the Australian community was something like $58 billion. I commend Access Economics and I thank them for releasing the report at my forum in Hobart and for being involved in many of the nine healthy lifestyle forums that I have hosted since 2002. The cost of obesity today is significant.

It is also worth noting that 40 per cent of all children play no sport outside school hours. In fact, the average time that children watch television per day—this is not per week—is 2.5 hours. The energy intake between 1985 and 1995 has increased by 15 per cent in boys and some 12 per cent in girls. The evidence shows that only 30 per cent of Australians eat four or more serves of vegetables per day and only half eat the daily recommended two serves of fruit. So we can see that obesity, poor dietary habits and a lack of physical activity account for at least 14 per cent of deaths in the USA, or some 300,000 premature deaths each year. As at 2000, total direct and indirect costs attributed to overweight and obesity were estimated at $117 billion in that country.

You can see the costs are significant. Where do the costs flow to? Not just to health costs, which are primarily related to chronic diseases like diabetes. I have type 1 diabetes and have obviously had a close association and working relationship with the diabetes community and specifically Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. I congratulate both those organisations for their advocacy and their efforts in addressing not only diabetes concerns but also the obesity epidemic. We have chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and respiratory problems and it is well known now that 80 per cent of all deaths are a result of chronic disease, not infectious disease. Chronic disease is a big issue for us here in Australia and it is in large part because of the obesity epidemic.

I learnt in 2002 following a study tour to the USA where I attended the Harvard School of Public Health that 50 per cent of all deaths can be prevented or postponed as a result of better public health practices. That means behaviour change. That means the way we live our lives—more healthy diets, healthy eating practices and an exercise regime. Regular exercise and a more healthy diet can make a huge difference—an enormous difference.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We try, Senator Barnett, we try.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, we should be trying, Senator Fierravanti-Wells—each one of us. As members of parliament we are role models whether we like it or not and we should try. That does not mean we are perfect. Nobody is perfect but let us give it a go. As politicians and policymakers we need to do our best to ensure that we address and attack the obesogenic environment in which we live. We live in an obesogenic environment and we need to undertake mechanisms, initiatives and policies which address, attack and change that obesogenic environment into a healthy environment in which young children, young Australian kids, in particular, can prosper and do well. Let us give them the best chance in life.

That is one reason why the first anti-obesity initiative by any Australian government was announced by the Howard government in 2004 in Launceston by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, together with Senator Rod Kemp. This was at my June 2004 Launceston Healthy Lifestyle Forum, where Mr Howard announced four specific anti-obesity initiatives. One of them was having two hours of PE, of compulsory physical education, per week in schools. Up until then people simply did not accept it because it was compulsory—you know, kids should be entitled to do what they want to do. Of course that has all changed; it has been turned on its head.

Another key initiative was the commencement of the Active After-schools Communities program. Senator Pratt referred to it and noted that it was $124 million over four years. That is the correct figure, not $12.4 million over four years. That program was commenced under the Howard government, and it is continuing. But it should be extended to all schools so that all kids can have an opportunity to partake in it, and that is an objective I hope we can move towards. Some 3,000 schools benefit at the moment but we can do much better. And again that is about creating good habits for children. That initiative also included providing more healthy tuckshops and more healthy eating opportunities and healthy options for kids in schools. The fourth part of that anti-obesity initiative package was an education and information campaign including Joe Lively. I know that the Joe Lively campaign at least was supported by the AANA, the Australian Association of National Advertisers, and I commend them for their advocacy, for their leadership, particularly at the time, to try to make a difference. So in terms of the background, yes, it is a very serious issue and we need to address it.

What have the Labor government done to address this issue? Let us just have a think about it. They announced during the election campaign that obesity would be a national health priority, and I congratulate them for that. They subsequently announced that it would be, and that commitment was made by Nicola Roxon on behalf of the government. But what has happened since? The government have been there now for well over 15 months and in terms of initiatives and on-the-ground action to address the obesity epidemic, results have been very, very slim indeed. It is true that we have a National Preventive Health Task Force, but how long do we have to wait before we get action on the ground in terms of initiatives to combat the obesity epidemic? I call the government to account. I say: please stand up and act. There are things that you can do now, this week, and today, to make a difference. The government should be making a difference.

Professor Rob Moodie, who is the head of the National Preventive Health Task Force, is a very credible and great guy doing a professional job with the support of Professor Paul Zimmet and his other colleagues on that task force. I look forward to the report when it is due—and I understand that that is around mid-year—but we simply cannot wait for further reports. It is now a national health priority, but what does that mean? The government must come clean and address that particular matter.

Some of the initiatives that the government could undertake are referred to in my book, which was launched by Tony Abbott in December 2006, titled the Millennium disease: responses to Australia’s obesity epidemic and edited by me. It has insights from experts and a selection of presentations from the healthy lifestyle forums to help combat childhood obesity, which I have hosted since 2002. So there are some great minds and some great policies and some great initiatives in there.

In fact, it includes a 10-point plan at the back of the book which includes classifying obesity as a national health priority, and you can tick it—it has been done—but now you need action. There are things like: applying a Medicare rebate for obesity consultations; establishing a healthy lifestyle commission reporting to the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; extending the Active After-school Communities program to reach all school-age children; extending the Healthy School Community program and making that an annual funding arrangement. These are definitely initiatives that should be seriously considered. In addition, allow only healthy food to be sold in school canteens and provided at childcare centres, including a ban on sugary fizzy drinks. They should not be there. They should not be in the tuckshops. Kids should only have healthy options at the school kiosk or school tuckshop, not unhealthy options.

We should be benchmarking children’s health and fitness annually just like we benchmark their literacy and numeracy with the benchmarking tests we do. And in terms of targets, why don’t we adopt 2010, or a target in the near future, when we can say, yes, let us target halting the rise in obesity by that time and adopt, say, 2015 as the target for halving obesity in kids? We should be framing new food-labelling regulations to outlaw claims such as ‘98 per cent fat free’ and help consumers tell at a glance which products are healthy and which are not. We do not want misleading information and misrepresentation in advertising in this country. We should increase funding and support for participation in local sport and recreational activities. So there are 10 points, but there are many other initiatives which I would encourage the government and, indeed, all of us to seriously consider.

In terms of the advertising issue itself, again I want to acknowledge the work of the AANA for what they have done and I refer to the submission or report done by Frontier Economics, the Impacts of advertising bans on obesity in Australia. It was released in December 2008. It is an interesting report. It highlights a range of issues and in particular the fact that the advertising, marketing and media industry contributes a $30 billion annual stimulus to the Australian economy and it is not taxpayer funded. It also notes the Rudd Labor government’s guidelines for regulation. In chapter 3 of that report it notes the impact of a particular ban on the advertising of food and beverage. It talks about the principles for regulatory design, the effectiveness of it, and highlights a number of other issues including a cost-benefit analysis of implementing a ban. Of course there is no silver bullet, but that is not an excuse for doing nothing. That is why I call on the Labor government to act on the issue of obesity and bring it to the fore.

We are concerned about any unintended consequences that may flow from Senator Brown’s bill. Initially the bill was designed to ban all food and beverage advertising during the said time. Of course, that would include advertising fresh and healthy food and fresh and healthy drinks, like Tasmanian apples, Tasmanian apricots—Queensland bananas, Senator Birmingham—Tasmanian apple juice and fresh strawberries. All of those beautiful products, which should be promoted and highlighted for kids, could potentially be affected by unintended consequences. I note that, more recently, there has been an amendment to the bill which highlights that there can be an exemption provided by the minister to allow for advertising of healthy food and beverages. Indeed, I note that even today there are further amendments to the bill. I have not considered those amendments that have just been tabled today, but I do say that in its current form I cannot support this bill. But I do support the objective of addressing the obesity epidemic and I commend all senators for that.

I also want to thank and acknowledge the advocacy of Professor Paul Zimmet for his work in addressing the obesity epidemic. I thank Professor Jennie Brand-Miller and the wonderful professional group at the University of Sydney for what they do. I acknowledge the Oxford Health Alliance for their advocacy on these matters, in terms of hosting forums and highlighting what needs to be done to fix this problem. I thank Collin Segelov, who recently retired as Executive Director of the Australian Association of National Advertisers, for his work—and, in fact, for his friendship, which started in November 2002 at the Launceston Healthy Lifestyle Forum. I congratulate Scott McClellan on his recent appointment to the AANA and I wish him well. I noticed that the conclusion of the majority report of the committee referred to by other senators in this place did note that there is no causal link between the advertising and the intake of food and beverage in terms of obesity and outcomes. That report is worth reading. I thank the Senate committee for their work and for what they have done.

In short, we need to do everything within our power to change the obesogenic environment in which we live, so that men and women and boys and girls can live more healthy, active lifestyles. There are many ways to do this. I call on the government to act, to implement initiatives—take the ‘decisive action’ they so often refer to—to make sure that obesity is a national health priority and address that problem. In conclusion, I want to say—perhaps going back to where I started—that we have 3,000 kids dying every day in the world, and here in Australia we are one of the fattest nations on earth. We can do something about this issue. We can make a difference. And I commend those objectives to the Senate.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this occasion to speak in support of the need for changes to advertising of junk food, especially where it is aimed at children. However, I am unable to support the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008 as it stands. I want to place on record my comments in relation to the contribution of Senator Pratt. I thank her for her contribution. I also thank the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for their report and I thank the witnesses who appeared at that hearing.

The prevalence of junk food advertising on Australian television is becoming more and more noticeable—with increasingly specialised and refined tactics that set products apart from those of their competitors. Marketers aim to make their product the most desirable, the most exciting and the most recognisable, so that repeat purchases are made over and over again. Advertising during targeted times is just one of these tactics: you market to young children then advertise during the favourite shows of that age group—just before school or just after school or whenever children are most likely to be exposed to that advertising.

Easy-to-recognise and easy-to-repeat jingles can be carried in a child’s mind for weeks on end and hummed as they walk with their mother or father down the grocery aisles on shopping days. Exciting packaging—whether spaceships or dinosaurs or popular TV characters—can attract the eye of the young viewer. As we see more and more these days, products are linked to television shows, popular movies or computer games in order to connect the hype associated with the show, movie or game with the junk food product being advertised. Celebrity spokespersons can also play a key role in selling products to the desired market. If the Ninja Turtles or Hannah Montana are the coolest things to that age group at that time, then you get the Ninja Turtles or Hannah Montana to stand there in your advertisement, holding your product with excited anticipation, telling the audience that this product must be bought.

Another common tactic employed these days is the lure of the gimmick. It seems that every fast-food outlet has a specific children’s meal that inevitably comes with some toy or gadget or other enticing item. Even worse, they are produced by themes in weekly lots, so that each toy or character can only be collected for one week, and the entire 10 characters must be collected in order for the effect to be achieved. What child would only want to collect two or three of the 10 possible characters? They have to have them all. And let us not talk about the endless prizes and giveaways. It seems as though every box of sugary cereal comes with a free DVD or something or other. Even bags of chips come with playing cards or some sort of collection, and every block of chocolate these days seems to give you the chance to win a plasma television screen.

The methods employed to market unhealthy, unnecessary food and drink, let alone toys and other items, to children are as elaborate as they are endless. The effect is to make sure that your child, the consumer, wants their product and that they will use the extraordinary powers that all children seem to possess to ensure that you, the parent and the payer, will buy it for them. Children are, by nature of their limited life experience, unable to understand the manipulative tactics that can be used in persuading them to favour a product. Equally, they do not understand the long-term impact that poor eating now can have on their health into the future. A child is almost unable to fathom how far away Christmas is, let alone why eating lollies now may be bad for their cholesterol or their heart in decades to come. So we, as parents and as guardians, with a duty of care to protect our young from possible harm, are left to do the dirty work. We are the ones left to say no. I think we can all relate to parents struggling to get out of a supermarket, where products are cleverly placed to ensure that children have the optimal opportunity to demand things. Parents only too often give in to these demands.

The consumer group CHOICE recently released research that illustrated just how hard it can be to say no. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents reported that they believed the advertising and marketing of food specifically to children was causing or contributing to difficulties with developing healthy eating habits. Eighty-two per cent of parents favoured increased government regulation to control the way that sugary and fatty foods are marketed. Eighty-two per cent also reported that their child had specifically asked for a particular junk food item because they had seen it advertised, it contained a toy or gimmick, it was endorsed by a celebrity or it offered a potential prize. These figures clearly illustrate that, despite the best efforts of parents to create long-term healthy eating habits in their children, they are being undermined by the sophisticated tactics of junk food manufacturers and their advertising executives. However, the most alarming statistic that I came across was from Consumers International, which reported that one in 10 children around the world are now overweight. But it gets worse: the figure in Australia is one in four. One child out of every four in Australia is overweight. This figure is truly alarming.

It is partly for this very reason—as a response to these very statistics—that I am unable to support Senator Brown’s bill. The bill proposes changing junk food advertising in two ways. Firstly, it proposes that all advertising of food or drink be proscribed from being broadcast either during peak children’s television viewing periods or during children’s television shows that may be screened outside of these peak viewing periods. Additionally, it proscribes advertisements or sponsorship announcements identifying or referring to the manufacturer of food or drink. An exemption, given in writing, can be made by the minister if the food or drink is deemed to be beneficial to a young person’s health or wellbeing according to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrients profiles. Secondly, the bill proposes to make government funding of all schools, both public and private, conditional upon these schools not displaying any advertisements or sponsorship announcements relating to a manufacturer of food or drink. Once again, a written exemption may be given by the minister if the food or drink is considered beneficial to a child’s health and wellbeing according to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrients profiles.

While I commend the intent of the bill, it cannot be supported for the fact that it tries to oversimplify a very complicated issue. Healthy eating amongst our children goes far beyond simply controlling children’s television advertising. Junk food can be advertised, either directly or indirectly, on television, in cinemas, on the internet, at food outlets, in shopping centres, at sporting events and by countless other ways and means. An advert may not appear on television, but if children are lured by the same sophisticated advertising techniques in the local supermarket, the same effect is achieved. And marketing goes far beyond simple advertising. Packaging, labelling, celebrity endorsements, associations with films or computer games and much more all need to be addressed when considering how best to shield our children from the bombardment of junk food marketing tactics.

A sensible response to the issues of junk food, its marketing and childhood obesity goes far beyond limiting television ads. Such a serious issue requires a serious, interconnected and comprehensive response, not a small measure that will yield limited results, especially given the enormous number of advertising media that can be used in this day and age. Very little would be achieved by passing this bill, and it would only serve to distract us from acknowledging the seriousness of the issue and responding accordingly. Any response needs to be coordinated in conjunction with all key stakeholders, with thorough community consultation, and needs to take into account not just the role of advertising but also other influencing factors, such as educational programs, lifestyle factors and fitness levels.

The second issue that makes me unable to support this bill is the overreaching nature of the proposed ban. To proscribe the advertising of all food and drink, not just junk food, is a step too far. It takes away the right and capacity of legitimate businesses to advertise their products to their target audiences, regardless of whether they are unhealthy or just plain neutral. Surely alphabet spaghetti has just as much right to promote itself as rice cakes or apples. One may be considered healthier than the other, but under this proposed bill only the purest of the pure would be allowed to advertise and only after an exemption is received in writing from the minister. What level of work does this create for the minister when there are thousands upon thousands of requests from manufacturers to continue to advertise their products as they have done for years?

Another concern I have is the potential impact that the proposed changes would have on the viability of children’s television. Children’s television programs rely on advertising to fund their creation and continuation. By severely limiting the potential advertiser pool, children’s programming limits its capacity to sustain itself and to produce good quality, educational shows for our younger generation. Where does it end? Do we draw the line at proscribing the advertising of food and drink or does it escalate so that we can proscribe the advertising of toys we consider undesirable, theme parks we consider to go over the top and apparel we consider to be too expensive? When we respond, we must respond carefully and thoroughly so that measures engaged to limit the effects of junk food on children are effective but at the same time are sustainable and realistic.

My final concern with the proposed bill is the impact on schools. The bill takes a step too far in making funding conditional upon not displaying the advertising of food and drink or their manufacturers. I am sure I am not the only one here who believes this negatively impacts on the rights of schools and insults their good sense in determining what students can and cannot see when at school. Schools are filled with education professionals who are well equipped to know right from wrong, to teach good from bad and to determine appropriate and inappropriate. To tie funding to such conditions is to become too authoritarian in the government’s role as a funding body and sets a dangerous precedent.

This measure will only serve to destabilise the good working relationships between the government and the education sector and, therefore, cannot be supported. As a mother and now a proud grandmother, I understand the pitfalls of junk food advertising and the power of toddlers’ tantrums. I have been there, done that and given in, I must admit, to buying the T-shirts that my daughters wanted at that time. So I want to see—as no doubt many parents want to see—effective, interrelated and adequate measures designed to deal with the issues of junk food. People expect any government measures that regulate the junk food industry to go beyond television advertising and posters in schools.

The Rudd Labor government has already made a strong inroad into addressing the issues of childhood obesity and health. The $872 million towards preventative health measures, provided through COAG over six years, is the largest ever investment by an Australian government in preventative health. The measures to be funded will be implemented across schools and workplaces and are aimed at changing unhealthy lifestyle habits rather than just limiting advertising content. This ensures that a long-term, healthy change is incorporated into people’s everyday lives and is far more likely to have health and wellbeing effects than those outlined in this bill. The $872 million for preventative health is in addition to the $50 million allocated in the government’s first budget to obesity prevention initiatives, including a range of programs specifically targeting children such as the Healthy Kids Checks for all children over four years of age, a habits for healthy kids guide and active after-school community programs, as well as to the development of vegetable gardens in up to 190 government primary schools.

At this stage, I would like to hold up as one of the many outstanding schools in my state the Youngtown Primary School—and what a great success that has been, not only to the schoolchildren but to the wider school community. If we implement programs like this, we find that children are going home and educating their parents, as they have done over many years with recycling. I place on record my congratulations to Youngtown Primary School for leading the way, along with many other Tasmanian schools.

We need measures that go far enough without going too far in one area and not far enough in others. We cannot patch together little bits of legislation here and there over the years and hope that somehow they will all string together to effect some kind of meaningful change. We need to be studied and certain about the way forward and, unfortunately, the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008 does not do that. Therefore, I will be unable to support the bill in this form; but, like previous speakers, I commend and support efforts that need to be made. I think it is something that we all need to be mindful of and set good examples for in our daily lives.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008 with a slightly alternative perspective from most of the speakers who have gone before me. Most of those speakers, as is frequently the custom with private members’ bills, have argued against the passage of the bill, but most have come from the same direction—talking about the need for greater regulation, the need for greater government control over areas such as food advertising. I speak from a different perspective today because I think this notion needs to be challenged head-on.

I know that this bill, coming from the Greens, and the views of my colleagues who have spoken today all come with the best of intentions. They all come with the best of intentions and concerns about what is an increasing health problem. Obesity across Australia, as it is across the Western world, is an increasing health problem and childhood obesity has followed that trend as an increasing health problem. Whilst I acknowledge those best intentions, the path to hell, as the cliche goes, is paved with good intentions. So whilst I know these are good intentions, I really do bring strong concerns about those who seek to turn to regulation and legislation every time they have a concern about where society is heading.

In this place we have immense power which we should all reflect upon and remind ourselves of occasionally. We have immense power to legislate and regulate virtually every aspect of people’s lives. We tax them and we require them to adhere to all sorts of laws, and our state parliaments and local governments around the country do likewise. These are immense powers to influence what people see, what they hear and what they do, and these powers need to be exercised judiciously, carefully, thoughtfully. Legislative control of people’s lives should be the last resort for this place—the last resort rather than the first retort. Unfortunately, too often nowadays people turn to legislation, government intervention and government interference as the first option.

The placement of advertisements on television, or what we see on television, should not be an area for major or enormous government legislative activity. It should not be a subject that this place spends many hours debating and legislating on. We should not necessarily expect government to control everything that people see or hear in their day-to-day lives. On this I think there is some level of hypocrisy with the Australian Greens putting forward this legislation. I have been quite heartened in working alongside Senator Ludlam on the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, questioning the validity of the Rudd government’s approach to internet filtering: the need for compulsory internet filters and mandatory ISP filtering. In that process the Greens have stood up for the notion that such government intervention in what people see and do is wrong. They have stood up for it when it comes to the internet, yet here we have a private member’s bill from the Leader of the Australian Greens trying to further regulate in a different media, a different forum, what people see and hear with regard to television advertising. We should be leaving it to the common sense of Australians—to their good judgment and, frankly, in most cases, perhaps their judgment is better than the collective wisdom around this building—and allow them to make decisions. Where necessary, we should certainly make sure they make informed decisions—that they make decisions with the right evidence and the right information in order to know the consequences of those decisions.

My stance on this bill will not be universally popular. In fact, as somebody who is not a parent I will probably receive some criticism that I am not informed on these matters or able to make a qualified judgment. I note some nodding on the government benches on that very matter. But I stand on this point of principle—and in years to come, should I be a parent, I look forward to the debates that I will have with the colleagues who challenged me on this—because I think it is important that sometimes we question the rush to government legislation. The idea that advertising is somehow the major contributor to childhood obesity needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged because, indeed, we have adults with an increasing problem of obesity—adults who should know better than to be sublimely influenced by adverts.

There is a longstanding problem of adult obesity that seems to flow from adults to children to some extent. We have evidence coming from hospitals and health clinics that children as young as one or two years of age are being diagnosed as overweight or obese. Doctors from the Children’s Hospital at Westmead reported only earlier this year, in February, seeing children as young as one and two years of age who are overweight and suffering from obesity. Those children have not been influenced by television advertising—certainly not. Those children have been influenced by one thing and one thing alone, and that is the food put on their table, the food put in their mouths—what it is and the quantity of it.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too much.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells makes a very valid point: too much. It is about what the food is and the quantity that goes in the mouth. For lots of people obesity is in many ways a simple problem: it is about what goes in and what goes out in terms of energy levels. That is not the case all the time. I recognise that for others there are more complex health factors at play. Certainly we have clear evidence that children are becoming overweight before they can possibly even be influenced by the type of advertising that is targeted by this legislation. So we need to bring the focus and the pressure back to parental responsibility. It used to be the case that one of the main driving forces in society was the social pressure and social accountability placed on families and everybody else regarding the way they behave. In a sense, there was mutual responsibility within families for the way other members of that family looked, dressed, behaved et cetera. Whilst that is not always fair, there is certainly a place for it, and there is certainly a place for it in the relationship between parents and their young children.

Governments of course can take their share of the blame in this debate. It is not about their failure to ban junk food advertising, but governments can take their share of the blame because governments have played a major role in creating a culture that is wrong or misplaced. It somehow shifts the notion of responsibility so that responsibility no longer necessarily lies directly with parents or family; there is a notion of responsibility that somehow governments and society are to blame, that governments need to step in to fix things where society has failed, and that it is all up to governments to address these problems. They have managed to create this culture not just in Australia but in other Western governments as well.

Our governments here, and I cite all of them including the last one—of which I was all too briefly a member—have managed to create this culture through the expansion of welfare to levels that stretch out way beyond those who need a basic safety net. They provide handouts—and we see the current government providing many, many handouts at present—to people who are past the need for basic safety nets. They have managed to expand it through the increased expectation that, when you have a problem, you call on the government to fix it. You do not get together as a local community and address the local problem you have; you write a letter to the minister and ask them to get a government department to investigate it and fix it. We have developed this culture of an increased dependence and an abrogation of responsibility. It is something that we need to tackle. Governments can share their part of the blame as well because, of course, the reduction in things like sport in schools, which is a key factor in this whole childhood obesity debate, is too often overlooked. We have seen a reduction in the activity of sport in schools and in local communities being driven partly by the madness of our litigious society which has made the ability of communities to encourage safe physical activity so much harder.

Senator Polley, in speaking before me in this debate, talked about the fact that parents are left to do all the dirty work. Yes, they are. That is part and parcel of the responsibility one takes on as a parent. Should I have the enormous opportunity to be a parent one day, I expect that that will be part of the responsibility I and my wife will take on. Part of the deal that you sign up to as a parent is being responsible for the dirty work. Children are going to like junk food. That is a simple matter of fact. Junk food that is particularly for children is sweet and tastes good, and so the sampling of junk food is probably enough for children to want more of it, regardless of its advertising content or the extent to which it is advertised. Again, it will be for parents to self-regulate in the family home. Governments need to arm parents with the information, expertise and knowledge of food; however, I think most people have that knowledge. If you ask people about food, they know what is healthy to eat and what is unhealthy to eat. They know that fresh foods such as fruit and vegetables are good for you and that foods with a high sugar content or foods that are highly processed are not good for you. Most people understand that. Most people already get it. We need to place the responsibility on them to take greater care for what they consume.

We also get hysteria in this debate. A couple of years ago, Monica from Play School was attacked for daring to appear in a Coco Pops advertisement. The debate rages out of control sometimes and beyond what is the norm. I am conscious of time and that others wish to speak in this debate, so I will conclude by urging the Senate to reject this bill, not because of the technicalities or technical arguments of which other senators have spoken but because this is a bigger issue. It is a cultural issue. It is one that we need to tackle in a far more holistic sense, and it goes to that notion of individual responsibility, family responsibility and parental responsibility. We are not going to fix childhood obesity by banning television advertising, and nobody in this room seriously believes that that would fix it. We need to get back to focusing on how we can help those communities by encouraging a level of responsibility that can and should make a difference, and with that I urge the Senate to reject this bill.

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

I would like to address this very important bill, the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008, because it is an essential component of addressing the level of obesity in children in Australia. I agree with Senator Birmingham that this legislation is not the only solution, but I think it is part of the solution. It is acknowledged that we need a comprehensive approach to dealing with obesity in the same way that we need a comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol—and advertising is certainly part of that approach.

Senator Birmingham, I hope when you have children that you will actually understand what it is like to be a parent trying to help your children make decisions. Until you experience nag power, you have never experienced true lobbying. Nobody can lobby like a child, particularly one who is between, say, the ages of four and 40, probably. It is from the time when that child can speak until the time you can reason with them, which is perhaps about the age of 15 or 16. That is why we need to put in place provisions around advertising of junk food. As has already been stated in this place during the debate, obesity costs the Australian community a lot of money—around $58 billion a year, according to the latest survey by Access Economics. Australia has the fastest growing rate of childhood obesity in the world. I know that people are debating and questioning the notion of what is overweight and what is obese, and so they would question those figures. The fact is that we have too many children who are overweight and too many children who are sliding into obesity. We believe that we need to be restricting advertising during children’s television viewing hours, because they are particularly vulnerable to it.

A study undertaken in September 2008 by the Centre for Overweight and Obesity at the University of Sydney and published in the journal Health Promotion International looked at all food advertising on TV and then rated the number of ads promoting non-core foods or junk foods with premiums such as a toy or other enticing offers. Remember that that is how advertisers also attract children. The study then matched how many of these ads appeared during key children’s viewing times. This study of more than 20,000 ads found children’s TV viewing times were being targeted by such ads. The report found that the promotion of all food advertisements containing persuasive marketing was significantly higher during children’s peak viewing times. The rate of food advertisements for all foods and non-core foods using promotional characters was substantially higher during younger children’s popular programs. The rate of non-core food advertisements containing premium offers was more than 18 times higher during children’s popular programs compared to adults’ popular programs and premium offers included with food products encouraged children to pester parents—pester lobbying—to purchase these products. This is particularly the case when premiums are offered as collectables, such as sets of toys provided with fast food meals.

There is no doubt in my mind that restricting advertising during children’s TV viewing hours will significantly lessen not only pester power but also children’s exposure to junk food, which undoubtedly plays a highly significant role in the overweight and obesity problems our children are facing in Australia. We should approach this issue in the same way that we approach alcohol advertising, for example. Other than for some loopholes, which we think need to be corrected, alcohol advertising is not permitted during children’s viewing times. As a community, we have made a decision that we do not think it is appropriate to put certain ads on during children’s viewing times. The Greens believe that ads for fast foods or junk foods fall into that category. So we think the provisions in this bill are very important. It is pleasing to see that speakers all agree that we have a significant problem with obesity in Australia. But it is unfortunate to hear people say that we need a comprehensive approach, that this legislation is too soon and that provisions in the bill may have unintended consequences. The fact is that we need to get going on dealing with this problem, which is overwhelming our children and our society.

We think this is a very important step in protecting children. The name of the bill says it all: Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008. We believe this is a significant first step and we commend it to the Senate. I am pleased to have co-sponsored the Greens’ dissenting report of the inquiry into this bill. Senator Brown and I were both convinced by the evidence given to the committee that this is an appropriate step in dealing with junk food advertising, and so I commend this bill to the House, as do the Greens. In fact, I move:

That the question be now put.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, your motion is out of order. According to standing order 199(3):

A motion that the question be now put may not be moved by a senator, other than a minister, who has spoken in the debate or who has previously moved that motion.

So your motion is out of order.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask that your ruling be referred to the President for adjudication. I disagree with it. I ask for it to be referred to the President so that we can get a report back from him.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will refer my ruling to the President at your request, Senator Brown, but I have just read to you what standing order 199(3) says. I think it is absolutely clear. But, as you request that it be referred, I will refer it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008. I noted Senator Barnett’s comments earlier in the debate. I know he is very genuine about health issues, but he is quite wrong when he refers to what the federal Labor government is doing about health issues. I hope to speak at some length on all of the things that this government is doing in a very positive way for the issue of health and, in particular, the issue that this bill seeks to direct its attention to, which is childhood obesity. The bill itself is called the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2008, and it seeks to restrict the times that so-called fast-food companies can advertise their products. In particular, the bill seeks to impose a very significant restriction between the hours of 6 am and 9.30 pm. I rise to oppose the bill—not the sentiments behind the bill because I do not think anybody disagrees with those. All of the previous speakers I had the opportunity to listen to made it clear that they did not dispute the objectives behind the bill. But the bill has a number of very fundamental weaknesses, and it is for that reason that the government is not supporting this legislation.

I think one important threshold issue that arose as a result of the deliberations of the committee that looked at the bill was the very issue of the term ‘junk food’, because the bill obviously turns very crucially on that definition. I would refer this chamber to what the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs had to say on that issue at paragraph 1.54 of the committee’s report:

Industry submissions and witnesses questioned the use of the term ‘junk food’ in the title of the Bill, noting that there was no clear definition of which foods and beverages could be classified as ‘junk food’. They highlighted that all food and beverages sold in Australia are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand as safe to consume and can be part of a balanced diet for children and adults.

So right at the outset there is the fundamental question of the definition of junk food. As I said, I do not think there is anybody in the chamber who would not want to see a better outcome in children’s health, but the government does not believe that Senator Brown’s bill is the way to go at this time.

I think there are a number of points that need to be made about the bill. While the objectives of the bill are admirable, I would like to refer to some of the ways in which the government is dealing with this issue. If we want to refer to one particular area in which the government is seeking to address the obesity issue in Australian children which a number of speakers have referred to, then we can refer to programs being implemented, like the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program. The Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program was started in Victoria in 2001 and was a partnership between the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation and the state government of Victoria, together with philanthropists and corporate donors. It involves children in grades 3 to 6 learning how to grow their own fruit and vegetables together. They then learn how to prepare tasty and nutritious meals with the produce in a purpose-built kitchen.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was your favourite menu?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have one in particular, but I do want to refer to one of the schools in my duty electorate of Wakefield. As I indicated to you, this program is being rolled out in 190 schools. One of the first schools that received funding under this program was the Elizabeth Downs Primary School. I would be happy to make an inquiry as to what sort of food they are providing at that school. The legislation in particular seeks to impose restrictions on food and beverage advertising on television during children’s viewing times.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the debate having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.