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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2949 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

the country. Mr Moore is right in that. I do not accept that this is a breach of that agreement. That agreement prohibits new food standards, and I have very deliberately crafted this legislation not to impose a food standard. It requires that, at point of sale, there be a sign displayed.

Food standards apply to alcohol. Alcohol is a food; it is brought up in the food standards regime. This is no more a food standard than the law which requires, where alcohol is sold in the ACT, that there be a sign saying, "Are you 18?", et cetera - all of those proof of age provisions. They relate to and regulate the sale of alcohol products; but they are not food standards. This is not a food standard; nor does the National Food Authority say that it is a food standard.

Mrs Carnell: It says that it is contrary to the agreement.

MR CONNOLLY: No, it does not. It says that what I am addressing - that is, the subject of genetic engineering and the subject of food irradiation - is subject to food standards being developed. That is true. But it does not purport to say that the legislation as drafted imposes a food standard and is thus in breach of the agreement.

Mr Humphries: Then why do they say, "Don't do it."?

MR CONNOLLY: Because I believe that the National Food Authority is severely embarrassed by being caught out by consumer movements and environment movements around this country. For some time, I have been very concerned about the way in which the National Food Authority conducts its business - both as Minister and in opposition. Last year - and I hope that this has been remedied - I was very distressed to find that the National Food Authority sought my approval, as it sought approval from all other Ministers, to approve certain changes to levels of mercury in fish products. We were advised that this was fine; that it was non-contentious. When I wrote to consumer movements, they said "Oh, no; it is not non-contentious". There were grave reservations.

As Minister, I put on the agenda for a ministerial council meeting, which I did not end up going to - I hope that the matter has been addressed and I hope that Mrs Carnell will take this up - a recommendation from me as ACT Minister that, when the National Food Authority goes to Ministers for approval, as part of the formal consultation, Ministers will be told what the "it" is and what the consumer view is. The fact is that food standards have not been the subject of much political debate in Australia. When it comes up at ministerial forums, it is at the end of the debate; people do not pay much attention to it.

As I said in my introductory remarks, my concern about genetically altered and irradiated food is a concern about technological determinism: "We can; therefore, we should". The experts will always tell us that it is safe. As Ms Horodny said, the experts told us that calicivirus could not possibly escape from the limited quarantine release zone in South Australia; and it did. It having escaped, the experts have been telling us for months now that it is absolutely and perfectly safe; there is no question of any damage to humans from the calicivirus and the - - -

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