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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2646 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

being restricted to the ACT. It is not a factor that ought to be taken into account in considering this bill.

I should also say that a number of interest groups have written to me, that I have responded to them, and that they have misrepresented my response to them. For example, the animal liberation organisation asked me for a meeting on this legislation this week. I said that I would not be available for a meeting this week. Mr Speaker, there is no reason at all to put out misinformation on egg labelling.

The bill I have presented today is based on the model food provisions and was developed following five years of public consultation, occurring mainly at a national level. Earlier this year, the non-core provisions also underwent an ACT-specific regulation impact assessment, involving consultation and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Consultation took place with industry groups that represent ACT food businesses, and about 2,000 food businesses were also contacted to encourage their participation in the process.

To paraphrase the findings of the regulatory impact statement, the major effect of the non-core provisions will be to increase the rate of compliance with the core provisions as the majority of the non-core provisions complement the food standards code and enable them to be enforced. Also, the regulation impact statement recognises that adoption of many of the non-core provisions is necessary to give effect to the core provisions.

In summary, the proposed outcome should maintain, or possibly enhance, the already high standards in force in the ACT and have minimal disruptive effect on the operation of food businesses because the proposals do not involve major departures from the status quo and basically maintain the existing balance between public health requirements and requirements for business.

The authors of the regulation impact statement found during consultation that ACT businesses were of a general consensus that uniform food regulations were essential for customer confidence, professional opportunities and business investment. Those consulted were also generally supportive of the adoption of the food safety standards which are intended to replace the ACT's existing food hygiene regulations.

The purpose of the bill I have presented today is not only to honour the commitment that the ACT government made in November last year when it signed the 2000 agreement, but also to ensure the continued protection of public health and the provision of information enabling consumers to make informed choices. This bill provides a framework for ensuring that food, as one of the key potential means of transmitting illness, is correctly labelled, safe and suitable.

The Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA, finalised the development of the national food safety standards last year. The national standards deliver uniformity with respect to food hygiene and food premises construction, vitally important as a measure to reduce the rates of food-borne illness. This means that all food businesses, wherever they operate in Australia, only have to comply with one set of standards.

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