Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1312 ..

It is true that the National Food Authority is the national regulating standard for food products, but I must say that I have always had concerns about the way that organisation is operated. Mrs Carnell yesterday referred to an encouragingly useful meeting of Health Ministers in Alice Springs. My experience, and Mr Berry's experience, was that, when the National Food Authority was discussed at Health Ministers meetings, it tended to be at the very end of the agenda. Issues like the billions of dollars of Medicare funds - where Health Ministers would always be out to do the best deal they could for their States or Territories - quite properly, tended to take up the bulk of those meetings. The extent to which Ministers have actually been able to inform themselves on some of these issues, I think, has been limited; and I would certainly encourage Mrs Carnell to take a great interest in NFA processes.

When issues come to Ministers for approval they tend to come with a departmental recommendation. As a Minister, a year ago I found that in those recommendations there was no advice as to whether a proposal was supported or opposed by the industry and the consumers. I put forward a proposal to the NFA urging that, when Ministers are asked to support a change to standards, the standard information that comes out from the NFA advise Ministers of the industry’s view and the consumers’ view. In most cases the industry will support the product. In some cases the consumers, through the ACA or another peak body, will support the product. In some cases they will be opposed to it. I would encourage Mrs Carnell to keep pushing that proposal because sometimes, when a government changes, a proposal from a former government just drops off the agenda.

I am not satisfied, and many consumers are not satisfied, that there are appropriate standards through that national process to ensure that proper information is mandated. Certainly, the material that has been coming out of the NFA in relation to genetically altered products is tending towards opposition to a standard for notification. This law that we are putting forward today will not prevent the sale of genetically altered foods or irradiated foods. At the moment, it is illegal to offer irradiated foods for sale. That is a decision made by the National Food Authority. Until Ministers can be totally satisfied that a foodstuff is safe, I would urge Mrs Carnell, on behalf of the Territory, to hold to that position.

Genetically altered food is coming and is coming imminently. The NFA, through a process that I am worried is driven to some extent by the technological determinism “We can; therefore, we should”, is moving against a national standard or any standard for mandatory information that the food has been genetically engineered. This legislation in the ACT would be the first in Australia. It would send a very clear signal to those scientists and officials in whom we have entrusted responsibility for Australian food standards that parliaments and politicians do take an interest in the food that we eat and that this Assembly, at least, is prepared to say, “If you are going to approve these new technologies, we require that consumers be informed”. That is all that this legislation does; it places a signpost to allow the consumer to make his or her own informed choice as to whether to partake in the wonders of genetically altered or irradiated food products.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Carnell) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .