Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill.

By leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GB124 together:

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

(2) Schedule 2, heading, page 21 (lines 1 and 2), omit "commencing 1January 2016", substitute "relating to Board".

This is procedural in nature, as the bill was due to be debated towards the end of last year but that did not proceed. This amendment changes the commencement date for the amendments to immediately after the day after this act receives royal assent, which will align with the other amendments in schedule 1, instead of commencing 1 January 2016.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting this amendment.

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

As the minister said, these are procedural. We will be supporting these amendments. However, that is with the proviso that our other amendments get supported when we come to make a decision on the third reading.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GB124 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 7774 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 13), after paragraph (b) of the definition of appropriate government agency, insert:

  (ba) the Gene Technology Regulator; or

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 24 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

4 Subsection 4(1) (definition of New Zealand lead Minister on the Council )

  Repeal the definition.

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 25 and 26), to be opposed.

I have covered the details of these amendments, so I do not intend to delay the chamber too long in explaining these again. I did cover the reasons for these amendments in my second reading contribution. We are deeply concerned about what impact removing the Gene Technology Regulator as an appropriate government agency would have in decision making and, in particular, in the process of how GM and GMO products are addressed by FSANZ and by the OGTR. These amendments, we believe, are important amendments that maintain the integrity of the current process. I do also appreciate that we will have to put them separately to the chamber.

I want to take a minute while I am on my feet to address some comments that Senator Macdonald made during his—let's say—wide-ranging contribution to this debate. It crossed my mind to raise a point of order because he went so far off the reservation and, in fact, so far away from the intent of this particular bill, to once again have a go at the Pew organisation and to have yet another go at marine protection, making completely false statements about the Greens position on fishing. I would clearly like to say that he was clearly making false statements and what he said was in fact not true—particularly the comments that he made about the Greens position on GMOs. Let me just be really clear that he was in fact not quoting Senator Di Natale correctly, and let me make sure that people are aware that the Greens' policy was amended last year. There will not be any further amendments and we are not in any discussions about any changes to our current policy on this matter. Let me reassure the community on that, and let Senator Macdonald know that he has it wrong.

Having said that, this matter does particularly relate to the protections and measures that need to be maintained in order to ensure that GMO content of our foods is properly regulated. I do commend these amendments to the chamber.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can indicate to the chamber that the government does not support these amendments. I certainly appreciate the detail with which Senator Siewert has applied herself to this piece of potential legislation. But the issue at hand is that the Gene Technology Regulator is not removed as an appropriate government agency. I think we need to be very clear about that. Of course, in the appropriate circumstances when there are issues that are related to the Gene Technology Regulator, FSANZ will still do that. Part of the new definition states:

any other body or officer of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or New Zealand that the Authority considers has a particular interest in the relevant matter.

That would clearly call the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator into any of those issues surrounding GMO, GM and indeed—as I indicated in my comments earlier—would future-proof any related matter, rather than having it restricted to those two fields.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting these amendments either, largely for the reasons that the minister has just outlined. We are satisfied that the provisions contained in the government's bill provide for the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to be informed of relevant FSANZ decisions. We understand that should the OGTR request FSANZ inform it of all decisions there would be no reason why this does not occur. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator said:

The OGTR does not operate in isolation from other product regulators and works closely with those agencies to ensure regulatory coverage but prevent duplication of oversight in relation to GMOs and GM products. Under the GT Act, I am required to seek advice from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) on risk assessments for environmental release of GMOs (sections 50 and 52).

The requirement for the Gene Technology Regulator to seek advice from FSANZ is not affected by the FSANZ Bill.

The gene technology regulator reaffirmed:

Interaction between OGTR and FSANZ is not limited to legislative requirements …

The two organisations exchange advice and information regularly, and a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies addresses the needs of the agencies to share information.

Labor was initially concerned by the provisions in the bill to remove the definitions related to GM from the act, which is why Labor specifically sought input on this through the Senate committee inquiry process. These provisions in the bill will not have any substantive change to the nature of regulation of GM foods or gene technology regulation.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7774 be agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that item 11 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 6 to 8), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 87, page 14 (lines 24 to 27), to be opposed.

I did listen to and note the comments the minister made about the regulation impact statement. Unfortunately, it does not address the issues of our concerns. We believe that this amendment would in fact strengthen the regulatory process and protections. As I said, often it is the best explanation of why changes are being made, so we believe that this amendment would be a stronger approach than the approach that the minister outlined during her contribution. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We as government do not support the amendment. So as not to take up any more time of the Senate chamber, I refer to my earlier statements in my summing up speech. We do believe that this is the most appropriate way forward.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not be supporting this amendment. We are satisfied that the provisions contained in the government bill provide for a regulatory impact statement to be prepared as appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7817 be considered. The question will be that items 14, 32 and 87 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7804:

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

(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), to be opposed.

I did cover off these amendments during my earlier speech. They relate to the composition of the FSANZ board and the fact that we are not supporting the changes to the composition of the FSANZ board. This is on the bases that it is currently finely balanced and we are concerned that the proposed amendments by the government give the minister discretion to appoint a bloc of members to the board from a range of criteria. Our concern is that, if the minister were to appoint a bloc of consumer rights members or people with industry background, that balance on the board would be lost. As for whether to admit the National Health and Medical Research Council, it could also diminish expertise in relation to the skills set that they bring to the board. They have contributed excellently to the board over the last 15 years, and we see no reason why they should not be included or maintain their position on the board. We are also concerned in the overall reduction in the number of public health and science based positions on the board. We accept that juggling the appointments to the board is not an easy challenge for the minister; however, we are concerned that, by granting so much flexibility, the board potentially could lose focus or its independence.

It is the key decision-making body in FSANZ. It is charged with developing and implementing the food code. The opposition's view is that its composition remain unchanged. These amendments seek to do just that.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the chamber that the government does not support these amendments. While I take on board the comments that have been made by both Labor and the Greens on this issue, the government does not agree with the amendments. The intent of this has been to open up the pool of potential candidates, while of course the intention is still to keep the balance in the mix on the board across consumer rights, science, public health and food industry board members.

Firstly, I note in particular that concerns have been raised about the NHMRC not being required under this to have a position on the board. That does not mean NHMRC are precluded from a position on the board. Indeed, it may well be that they will be the appropriate body to have that position. But this is about opening up the pool available for consideration for the board. To be very clear: NHMRC are not precluded and may well be considered. The total number of the board members with consumer rights, science, public health and food industry expertise is no different from the current membership.

I would also like to address the issue of ministerial discretion. I note Senator Siewert's comments earlier about not necessarily the government of the day but perhaps future governments having discretion. As chair of the food forum and knowing that the food forum has the final say over the appointment of the board and how that operates, I think that very much diminishes any possibility of ministerial discretion at any point in time weighting the board members given that that is a decision that goes back to all states, territories and New Zealand for their oversight. We will not be supporting the amendment.

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

I do have to note my frustration that this is the same amendment that the Greens have. We are listed first on the grey, and I was actually on my feet and did not get the call.

These amendments are exactly the same as the Greens amendments. We have flagged our strong concern about these particular measures by the government. I am sorry; I am not reassured by the minister's comments on the future. I of course take what she has just said in terms of her particular approach, but you still cannot predict what a future forum, people on the forum and future ministers may do.

I think it is a dangerous move to change the make-up of the board. Its independence is particularly important. Having the experts there is particularly important. There is the potential, through this amendment bill, for an industry dominated approach, and we do not support that. As I said, stakeholders have expressed to me repeatedly their concerns about the influence of industry in this process already. This would potentially further entrench industry's influence over decision making, and we think that is a dangerous move, so we do not support the approach the government is taking. Despite the minister's best intent to reassure us, I am not reassured by the minister's comments as they relate to future decisions. These amendments will be in place for a long time, and I do not think that we can adequately ensure that there are the protections there in case of future decision making.

So we support these amendments to the bill. The Greens have exactly the same amendments, which I flagged during my speech on the second reading. Obviously, once we have dealt with these I will not be moving mine, but we do support these amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Siewert, in relation to your initial comments, I can just advise you that Odgers' does provide some guidance to the chair in matters like this in terms of the precedence for the call. It can be found on page 241 of Odgers', but I can advise you that an opposition senator leading for the opposition in relation to a bill or other matters before the Senate is usually given the call before other senators. I do note that both you and Senator Gallagher rose at the same time, and I applied Odgers' practice. I just hope that explains the decision I made.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just briefly respond to the senator. I appreciate the senator's comment around how my approach would be in the current circumstances. However I just need to correct the record. It is not my approach; it is the legislation that requires it. New Zealand, as a member of the food forum, must be consulted, and the legislation requires that the food forum's non-New Zealand members—the jurisdictions of Australia—agree to the appointments. I think anybody that has had any involvement with that food forum would know that things are very robustly discussed. Reaching consensus on issues always is as a result of, as I say, very robust discussion and consideration. I am very confident that, even in a future iteration of government, that process would provide the surety to ensure that ministerial discretion did not allow a weighting of board appointments.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.