Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will go to opposition amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 6195.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I got the impression—and I will stand corrected if this is not the case—that, given the amendment and the change to the bill in the lower house, which effectively picked up a coalition amendment proposed by Dr Southcott relating to objects and functions, and that it is very similar to the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 6178, perhaps Senator Siewert is not proceeding with that. I am not sure.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will probably need Senator Siewert to verify that at some stage.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. We will move then to clause 3, and perhaps I can speak to both our amendments on sheet 6195.

The Temporary Chairman:

Are you moving those together?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will deal with them separately. They are related, but I will speak to them and then move them separately.

The first amendment is to include a definition of ‘industry representative’. The coalition proposes that an industry representative be a person who the minister is satisfied has high-level industry or commercial expertise in the manufacture, distribution or marketing of food or beverages, including alcoholic beverages. This relates to having an industry representative on the advisory council of the Preventive Health Agency. The coalition proposes to include this definition in the definitions section. Then there is the separate amendment to clause 29 where we talk about the membership of the advisory council.

We believe that to get outcomes in this area it is important that we work with all relevant stakeholders. In an area like preventative health, if we are talking about, for example, trans-fats then we would want to work with restaurants and the fast-food sector to achieve results in terms of preventative health. If we are talking about the reduction of antisocial drinking or teenage drinking or harmful drinking, then it is important that we work closely with industry. Whilst the explanatory memorandum acknowledges this at page 3 and talks about the sorts of expertise, and the minister refers to that, the coalition proposes that the definition specifically include high-level industry or commercial expertise in the manufacture, distribution or marketing of foods or beverages, including alcoholic beverages. This definition is modelled from the Tourism Australia Act but of course is relevant and is tied to our other amendment regarding the membership of the advisory council. In effect, it ensures that industry representation is specific to the food and beverage industry, which is most pertinent to this area.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you are now going to move opposition amendments (1) and (3), on a sheet 6195, or just (1)?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will move (1) and we will deal with them separately.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is a bit unfortunate that we are just doing (1) and then (3) because we are going to have the same debate.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis of what Senator McLucas has indicated, I will speak to our amendment and the related amendment and then we will move them both together.

The Temporary Chairman:

So you are now seeking leave to move (1) and (3).

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 6195 together:

(1)    Clause 3, page 3 (after line 21), after the definition of Deputy Chair, insert:

industry representative means a person who the Minister is satisfied has high level industry or commercial expertise in manufacture, distribution or marketing of food or beverages, including of alcoholic beverages.

(3)    Clause 29, page 15 (line 13), at the end of the clause, add:

   ; and (d)    at least one, but no more than 2, members who are industry representatives; and

             (e)    at least one, but no more than 2, other members representing consumers or consumer health organisations.

This relates to the need for broad representation on the advisory council. Whilst the explanatory memorandum has acknowledged that the advisory council could include industry representation, I would like to pick up that point at page 3 in the memorandum. It says:

Whilst not specified in the Bill, such expertise may include public administration, business/employer groups, education, inter-sectoral collaboration, sports and recreation, preventive health including health promotion, community and non-government organisations, consumer issues—

as opposed to specific consumer health organisations—

social inclusion and disadvantage (including Indigenous Australians), local government, legal/regulatory, and finance.

The opposition is concerned that, if we are talking about preventative health, it is important that we do have the right representation on that advisory council. We believe it is important, if we are going to get good outcomes in preventative health, that we have to have the specific focus that actually does go to preventative health. For this reason we believe we do have to have representation from industry representatives and we also have to have representation from consumer health organisations. We think that by working with industry and preventative health experts we will get these outcomes. That is why we have specified in the amendment proposed to clause 29 that there should be at least one, but no more than two, members who are industry representatives and at least one, but no more than two, other members representing consumers or consumer health organisations. It is important that the council has broad representation. Clause 29 talks about membership and says the advisory council is to consist of:

(a)

one member representing the Commonwealth; and

(b)

at least one member, but no more than 2 members, representing the governments of the States and Territories; and

(c)

at least 5, but not more than 8, other members with expertise relating to preventive health.

That is where we would like to add these other two categories which specifically home in on the industry representatives and other members representing consumer or consumer health organisations. We think that this will ensure that the advisory council has broad representation from government, health experts and industry and consumer groups to ensure we have a balanced approach to preventative health. I commend those two amendments to the chamber.

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

As I articulated in my speech on the second reading of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2010, the Greens do not support these amendments. That probably comes as no surprise, because we did not support them in the House of Representatives either. We believe that an industry representative on the advisory council would be inappropriate and have the potential to undermine the work of the agency. Industry is keen to sell its products and promote its products, and in some cases that is contrary to the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. Not that long ago we were in here debating the alcopops legislation. I sat through two Senate inquiries—one broadly on alcohol and the other on the legislation itself—and there was a massive lobbying exercise to the point where, as one of my staff reminded me today, alcopops were delivered to our Senate suites. I remember telling the Senate how I collected all of those from the Greens senators and made sure we gave them back. We again gave back the alcopops that were delivered on the second day, and on the third day all they left us was the message.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you give them the passion pops?

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

We gave back all the alcopops. I have a real concern that industry representation on this advisory council—and I am not slagging off industry in general—could undermine the effectiveness of the council. We need very clear advice from this agency. As I articulated in my speech on the second reading of this bill, the agency has a big job. We believe that the marketing of alcohol and junk food is one of the big problems we are facing in promoting healthier lifestyles and acting on preventative health. It is no secret to those in this place that the Greens are very concerned about alcohol advertising and junk food advertising during inappropriate viewing times. Not long ago I heard one of the latest arguments, which says, ‘It is okay to have junk food advertising during children’s viewing hours because we are not actually aiming it at the kids; we are aiming it at the parents.’ We have strong concerns about that.

We believe there is nothing in the bill as it stands to prevent the minister’s appointing someone with industry expertise to the advisory council. Having said that, the minister will be able do that anyway if it is appropriate. But enshrining it in legislation will make the council look like it is promoting the interests of the junk food and alcohol industries and that they have special requirements to be listed above those of other parties.

The alcohol and junk food industries in Australia spend millions of dollars between them promoting their products. They spend far more money than this agency will be able to target at healthier lifestyles and other social marketing programs. The alcohol industry strenuously opposes measures designed to make its products—for example, alcopops—less attractive to young people, and I really do not see how the advisory council and the alcohol industry fit together. The alcohol industry deliberately undermined the impact of the alcopops tax through its big promotion of the drinking of spirits through the giving away of free soft drinks or the sale of two for one soft drinks. All sorts of mechanisms were used to undermine the effectiveness of the alcopops tax. So when the council talks about specific measures, I am not convinced that industry representatives will have at heart the preventative health message, because they will still want to sell their products. As I said previously, it is the marketing of their products that can add to the problems that we are trying to address.

We have indicated our support for consumer representation on the advisory council, and we have accepted the government’s commitment to appoint appropriate consumer representatives. During the debate on the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009, which did not go through during the previous parliament, we were strong advocates for consumer representation. But we do not agree with the philosophy of not having a given sector represented just because you do not have another given sector represented. For all those reasons, we do not believe it is appropriate to mandate in the bill industry representation. If it is decided that it is appropriate to have them there, there is nothing in the legislation to say that they cannot be there, but we do not think their representation should be mandated in the legislation, and therefore we do not support these amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not support these amendments. You do not put Dracula in charge of the blood bank, and I think that—

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

I was going to use that one.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you use it?

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

No, I was going to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not steal your thunder then. I do not think it is appropriate that we have industry representatives on a body whose reason for existence is to ensure that practical, sensible recommendations are made on preventive health. My concern is that, as Senator Siewert suggested, industry will not have at heart the interests of Australian consumers and their health. If you look at the history of the tobacco industry in this country and overseas, the tobacco industry stalled and stalled about the medical evidence about tobacco for some 50 years, and we know what the consequences of that were: literally millions of lives were cut short because of the damage caused by cigarettes.

There is no reason why this body cannot obtain advice from industry or consumer groups, but to mandate industry representation I think goes against the very ethos of what this organisation is about. I think there is a fundamental conflict of interest in having industry representatives on the advisory council. For instance, if this amendment were passed, would it mean that industry representatives could include the tobacco industry or would it mean manufacturers of foods that are high in trans fats? I know that the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, on the opposition front bench has quite properly raised concerns about trans fats and the risks inherent in trans fats. A manufacturer of a product that has very serious health risks should not be at the table and part of the process. This organisation can obtain advice from industry and can obtain inputs from industry, but that is all that there should be. I think industry representatives being at the table is a bridge too far.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to respond to a couple of points. We are talking potentially of an advisory council with specific functions which are well defined in the legislation. There would be nine or a maximum of 11 people on the advisory council, of which we are advocating some would be from consumer health organisations. This is ultimately about the consumer. If you want to effectively implement preventative health measures, you have to convince consumers because they are ultimately the body of people that are going to purchase, that are going to smoke, that are going to buy, that are going to partake of a particular activity that may or may not be good for them.

With all due respect to Senator Xenophon, I think it is really counterproductive to talk about Dracula in the blood bank. We are talking about one person. I am sure your objections are not to the consumer health organisations, but are mostly to the industry representative. With respect, I would have thought that if you are going to try and get important outcomes in preventative health and if you are going to achieve objectives, surely you will have a much better chance of achieving these objectives if you work with industry and you have a focused and determined approach where industry are involved by having one or two people on the advisory council. We are not talking about the majority of representatives on the advisory council.

I really think this needs to be put into context. I think we are losing the opportunity to encourage industry to work productively and effectively together. We are setting up this body, but you are deliberately excluding what I think is a very important component. Ultimately, it is about industries that manufacture products that we require people to either eat or drink in moderation. I think, in fairness to those industries, having them involved in a more cooperative manner may be a much better way of achieving this objective.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 6195 as moved by the opposition. However, this government is very interested in working with the food industry to achieve a better health outcome for all of our community. This is not about excluding people, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells indicated. The senator said that by voting against this amendment these people would be excluded. Quite the contrary: the legislation indicates that there are no prescribed classes at all who will sit on the advisory council. If you are going to extrapolate to say we have to have industry, then you would go through and list someone from the research community, someone from Indigenous health, people who are epidemiologists and people from the health sector. You cannot say we have to quarantine just one or two spots for industry without saying there is a whole range of other people.

Progress reported.