Page 1773 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, in brief, the 1991 agreement reflects the new role of the National Food Authority. It commits the States and Territories to adopt the food standards by reference; it establishes majority decisions as the basis for outcomes from the National Food Standards Council, and that is extremely important; and it enables differences in State and Territory food standards to be phased out in concert with the review of existing standards. The agreement was acknowledged by the Government last year, and the Bill we are debating today gives practical impetus to that agreement.
As mentioned in the Minister's speech, the Food Bill is the first part of a four-part process which will see introduced into the Assembly Bills which will give comprehensive coverage of food standards and food safety. This method of dividing the original Bill into four parts has much to commend it, in that it allows detailed examination of the various aspects of food legislation without an omnibus-style Bill.
The Bill we are debating today is a vehicle to provide for the adoption of the National Food Standards Code. It provides definitions as to what food is and defines what is included in the term "premises". It will cover all food, including water, that is sold. Generally, however, Madam Speaker, it does not cover food that is given away; but it does cover food that is given away if the person offering the food stands to gain a pecuniary benefit. Madam Speaker, concern has been expressed that this legislation covers charities, and it does. However, in my view, this is the correct approach to take. Food that is sold for human consumption must be of a proper quality and safe to eat, whether or not moneys derived from the sale of that food are used for a worthy cause. This is not relevant when protecting public health.
There is a provision in the Bill for the Government to make its own standards, but this can be used only in special circumstances. Madam Speaker, under the 1991 agreement, a State or Territory may make its own standards where a matter of public health is concerned and the due process of changing a standard nationally would take too long. In this instance, any such change must be notified to the National Food Authority; but, should the National Food Standards Council, the council of health for all States, Territories and the Federal Health Minister, not approve the changed standard, it lapses and cannot be used by the State or Territory which originally implemented it.
There have been occasions in the past when this ability to introduce or change a standard quickly has been of importance to public health. For example, in one Australian State vanilla essence was being sold in one-litre bottles. This product has a high alcohol content and teenagers were found to be buying the essence for that content. The State moved quickly to create a standard and to restrict the sale of vanilla essence to very small bottles only. I could make an observation about where that occurred, Madam Commissioner, but it would probably embarrass my colleagues opposite.
Mr Humphries: Madam Commissioner?
MR LAMONT: That goes back a long time. Madam Speaker - - -
Mr Cornwell: Do you mean commissioner or commissar?
Mrs Grassby: They are all the same, aren't they?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .