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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2939 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The Authority intends to investigate, through the release of a discussion paper and directly with food consumer and industry bodies, the use of additional strategies to mandatory labelling to enable consumers to assess information about the use of gene technology in food production processes.

To date, the Authority has received no correspondence from Mr Connolly or any other members of the ACT Assembly on either of these issues, and is not aware of any grounds for claiming them to be matters of urgency in the ACT.

I trust this information will assist you in briefing your Minister.

I am the Minister. I table that letter, because it is important that every member of the Assembly read this letter. It shows categorically that, by even passing this Bill in principle today, we would be at odds with an agreement signed by Ms Follett. I will also table the agreement, with Rosemary Follett's signature on it. This agreement says quite categorically that the only time that any State or Territory can put forward a piece of legislation outside that which is part of the National Food Authority national standards is where there is a matter of urgency or where there is a real risk to public health. That is the only out clause.

We find out that there is such a risk here that Mr Connolly has not even bothered to get in touch with the National Food Authority; that there is such a risk here that there is already a moratorium in place for irradiated food. There is none on the market. The extension of that moratorium has been agreed to by all States and Territories, until the National Food Authority comes down with a national set of guidelines on how we can treat irradiated food.

With regard to food that is a product of genetic engineering, the National Food Authority says that there are no such products on the market in Australia, except some foods that have been produced with the aid of genetically engineered organisms which makes the final product chemically no different whatsoever from the product which might be produced by more, shall we say, natural means. From a consumer's perspective, what is the difference? But even in those circumstances the National Food Authority approves those on a case-by-case basis, to make sure that the community is properly informed.

If this Bill is agreed to in principle, it puts the ACT outside an agreement that was made nationally. I supported the previous Chief Minister, Ms Follett, having signed it. It appears now that those opposite do not care what they have signed and what was signed by Premiers and by, I assume, others who believed that a national standard for food was important to our community. In the past Mr Connolly has often made statements about how important it was for us to be in line with the States with regard to these things and that to put ourselves out on a limb was simply ridiculous. Mr Moore, if he were here, would remember very well some of the absolutely remarkable statements that were made by Mr Connolly last year during the cannabis debate. He went right off the planet.

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