Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
1998-1999-2000-2001
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT BILL
2001
REVISED EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Circulated by authority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator the Hon Grant Tambling
THIS MEMORANDUM TAKES ACCOUNT OF AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE
TO THE BILL AS INTRODUCED
ISBN: 0642 466076
AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT
BILL 2001
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001 amends
the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 (the Act) to implement
those aspects of the new food regulatory system agreed to by all Australian
jurisdictions that require immediate Commonwealth legislative change. The Bill
reflects many of the arrangements for the new system that are set out in the
Inter-governmental Food Regulation Agreement agreed to by members of the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG) on 3 November 2000.
The new food
regulatory system was developed by a Senior Officials’ Working Group of
COAG, and is in response to recommendations of the Food Regulation Review
Committee that was chaired by Dr Bill Blair, OAM, and reported in August 1998.
This Committee was tasked with recommending to Government on how to reduce the
regulatory burden on the food sector and improve the clarity, certainty and
efficiency of the current food regulatory arrangements whilst, at the same time,
protecting public health and safety.
The Agreement establishes a new
Ministerial Council, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial
Council. The new Ministerial Council will develop domestic food regulation
policy as well as policy guidance for setting domestic food standards.
Recognising the primacy of public health and safety considerations in developing
such policy, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council
will be based on the existing Council of Health Ministers (ANZFSC), but can be
complemented by other Ministers nominated by individual jurisdictions covering
portfolios such as primary or processed food production, or trade. Each
jurisdiction will have only one vote on all resolutions.
The Bill will
establish a new statutory authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (the
Authority), to be based upon the existing Australia New Zealand Food
Authority.
The prime function of the Authority will be to develop
domestic food standards that are to be adopted nationally. These standards are
to be developed based on scientific and technical criteria and in accordance
with the objectives set out in section 10 of the Act. The standards will be
approved by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Board and notified to the
Ministerial Council. The Council will be able to direct the Authority to review
any standard, and can amend or reject any proposed draft standard that has been
reviewed twice.
The Bill sets out the process for the development of food
standards that takes into account the role of the Ministerial Council. The Bill
also makes provision for the transition from the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority (ANZFA) and other amendments that are consequential on the re-naming
of the Act and the creation of the new Authority.
The new system provided
for in this Bill strengthens the focus on public health and safety. The
Authority will eventually be able to develop all domestic food standards that
are to be adopted nationally and with New Zealand, including those that under
current arrangements are or would be established by the (Ministerial)
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. The
arrangements for the development of these primary product standards will be
developed by the new Ministerial Council and may require further legislation.
New Zealand has indicated that it will not be adopting these primary product
food standards because it has other systems in place for their
development.
Regulation is an integral part of any system designed to
achieve safe food in that it provides the overarching framework and legal
obligation for food businesses to produce food that is safe and suitable for
human consumption. To be effective, this framework must apply across the whole
food supply chain.
The new food regulatory arrangements will strengthen
Ministerial authority and accountability. The Food Regulation Agreement 2000
enables the Ministerial Council to develop policy guidelines to establish a
national policy framework. However, amendments made to the Bill in the Senate
will make the policy principles issued by the Council disallowable in either
house of the Commonwealth Parliament. All policy principles determined by the
Council must be consistent with the objectives of the Act, of which protection
of public health and safety remains the highest priority. The Ministerial
Council will also determine the arrangements to provide for high level
consultation with key stakeholders.
New arrangements will apply to the
approval of standards. A standard developed by FSANZ will commence if the
Council informs the Authority that it does not intend to request it to review
the standard. Any one member of the Council, however, can have the Council
request a review. A standard that has been reviewed once will commence if a
majority of the Council do not want a second review. A standard that has been
reviewed twice can be rejected by the Council and is subject to amendment by the
Council.
The Authority can only notify/gazette standards if it has been
informed of decisions by the Council.
The Ministerial Council will have
60 days to request the Authority to review a standard, or to inform it that it
will not request a review. The Council will also be able to amend standards, but
only standards that have been reviewed twice. The requirement that the Council
must always respond in relation to approved standards was included by Senate
amendment.
The commencement of standards developed as a matter of
urgency is an exception to the commencement procedures described above. They are
still, however, subject to review by the Council after they have
commenced.
Because of the proposed capacity of the Authority to
eventually develop all domestic food standards to be adopted nationally, the
Board will be able to have a wider range of expertise than does ANZFA (for
example, the Bill enables the appointment of members with expertise in primary
food production).
There are other key elements of the new food regulatory
system that do not require legislative change. First, a Food Regulation
Standing Committee will support the Council. The membership of this Committee
consist of heads of health departments, and heads of other government
departments that reflect the membership of the Council, as well as a senior
representative from the Australian Local Government Association. The Committee
is to be chaired by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.
Secondly, the Council will establish a mechanism for the provision of
stakeholder advice by representatives of the interests of consumers, small
business, industry and public health. It will be able to provide this advice to
the Council itself, the Standing committee, the new Authority, and an
implementation committee to be established by the Standing Committee to assist
it in the performance of its functions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact of this Bill will be low. The Department of Health and Aged Care will establish and fund a secretariat to provide administrative support for the Ministerial Council and related committees. There will be some expense associated with establishing the new standards setting process and the statutory authority Food Standards Australia New Zealand, as the FSANZ Board will have two more members than the ANZFA Board has at present.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
The current food regulatory system includes a number of food regulatory
agencies. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has
responsibility for developing and enforcing export food regulations and
standards. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) develops domestic
food standards for adoption by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council
(ANZFSC). Other agencies, such as the National Registration Authority (NRA) and
the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) also have a role in relation to food
standards development.
There are currently three Ministerial Councils
with responsibility for food regulatory policy (Health, Agriculture and
Fisheries). Under this arrangement, as noted above, national domestic food
standards are developed by ANZFA and are considered for national approval by
Commonwealth, State and Territory Health Ministers who constitute ANZFSC.
However, food safety related standards in relation to the primary industry
sector may also be developed by Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers. For
example, national domestic meat food standards are developed and approved
through processes established by the Agriculture and Resource Management Council
of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ).
The Food Regulation Review (the
Blair Review) was established by the Prime Minister in 1997 to make
recommendations to government on how to reduce the regulatory burden on the food
sector and improve the clarity, certainty and efficiency of the current food
regulatory arrangements while, at the same time, protecting public health and
safety. The Blair review found that, while the current system is effective at
producing safe food, its efficiency could be improved.
State and
Territory Governments have taken the Blair Report recommendations into account
in rationalising their individual food regulatory arrangements in ways that
accommodate their particular jurisdictional circumstances. Some of these
arrangements are already in place.
The major concerns highlighted by industry during the course of the
Review relate to the significant and unwarranted costs of:
• having
to deal with the large number of food laws;
• inappropriate food laws
and regulations, that is, they are too prescriptive, costly to comply with,
unenforceable or ambiguous;
• duplication of effort between regulatory
agencies;
• the inconsistency of regulatory approaches between
States/Territories and local governments, not only in terms of the regulations,
but also in their interpretation and enforcement.
These broader concerns
include more specific concerns regarding:
• the lack of clarity and
consistency in agency roles and responsibilities;
• inefficient food
standards setting processes;
• inappropriate food standards and
regulation; and
• insufficient consultation with industry in government
decision making.
Decisions made by Health Ministers (ANZFSC) in relation
to the adoption of food standards in the interests of public health and safety
can have an adverse impact on industry if industry concerns or existing food
safety related standards or regulations which are the responsibility of other
areas of government (such as primary industry, trade and small business) have
not been adequately taken into account in the standards development process.
This has, in some cases, resulted in industry and governments both bearing the
costs of meeting or enforcing duplicated and overlapping
regulations/standards.
The requirement for ANZFSC to adopt food standards
that are then to be adopted nationally means that the standards development
process is sometimes influenced by factors other than those that are
science-based. As a result, industry may have to bear the costs of meeting
requirements that do not contribute to the improvement of the protection of
public health and safety, while government may bear the cost of enforcing
them.
ANZFSC approval of a food standard currently involves a formal and
lengthy process. Industry may lose market advantage or suffer market
disadvantage because of the time it takes for a standard to be
approved.
It is not surprising that the Blair Report found that the food
industry views the current food regulatory decision making arrangements as
complex and fragmented, and that the general industry perception is that its
views are not sufficiently represented in the decision making
process.
These problems, noted by industry through the Blair Review
process, result from inefficiencies in Government processes and structures
related to the development, administration and enforcement of food laws, that
is, institutional failure. For example, the costs to Government of maintaining
separate and independent national food regulatory policy decision making and
standards development processes may be avoidable. Similarly, a rationalisation
and simplification of national food standards setting processes could provide
cost savings to Government. Therefore, the problem will not be solved through
the operation of the market alone and some kind of Government action will be
necessary to address the problem.
The Government’s objectives are to improve the efficiency of the
food regulatory system by ensuring that:
• the regulatory framework
maintains public health and safety by ensuring the production of safe and
suitable food;
• there is national consistency in the interpretation,
administration and enforcement of food regulation:
• the regulatory
framework is appropriate, is the minimum necessary to be effective and that it
operates efficiently by reducing costs to industry, government and consumers;
and
• consumers have sufficient information to make informed
choices.
In particular, it seeks to improve the timeliness,
responsiveness and transparency of food standards setting processes.
Three possible options have been identified for achieving the
government’s objectives.
The food regulatory model recommended by the Blair Report proposes
amalgamation of at least the food export policy development function, and
possibly the food export regulatory function, of AQIS with those of the current
ANZFA. The functions of other Commonwealth agencies such as the National
Registration Authority (for agricultural and veterinary chemicals) and the
Therapeutic Goods Administration could also be amalgamated with ANZFA into a
single national agency responsible for developing all food
regulations/standards, operating within the Commonwealth Health
portfolio.
ANZFA would continue to operate as a separate
“unit” of the Health and Aged Care portfolio and would report to a
new Council of Food Ministers. ANZFSC membership would be expanded to include
representation from agriculture portfolios, that is, Agriculture and Fisheries
Ministers. The Food Ministerial Council would make nationally agreed decisions
on food regulatory policy proposals and proposals for the adoption of food
regulations and standards developed by ANZFA.
The food regulatory model recommended by SOWG proposes a new, single
Ministerial Council responsible for developing nationally agreed domestic food
regulatory policy. The Ministerial Council would also develop policy guidelines
for the setting of all domestic food standards. In addition to Health
Ministers, jurisdictions would be able to nominate other Ministers with a
portfolio responsibility for food regulation, for example, in the areas of
primary industry, trade and small business, as members of the Ministerial
Council. Local Government would also be represented on the Council. Formal,
inclusive and cooperative consultative processes would be established by the
Ministerial Council to facilitate coordination and streamlining of domestic and
export food regulatory functions, including compliance and enforcement
functions, and the harmonisation of export and domestic food
standards.
Export food regulatory functions will remain with AQIS, in
recognition of the different drivers for export regulation and standards and of
the importance of the high international profile of AQIS. A single new,
national domestic food standards development agency, Food Standards Australia
New Zealand (FSANZ), based on the food standards development related functions
of ANZFA and incorporating model best practice in food regulation, would replace
ANZFA. COAG agreed that FSANZ would develop all domestic food standards,
including those currently developed by ARMCANZ, in accordance with any developed
Ministerial Council guidelines.
However, COAG did not specify details as
to how these standards are to be developed. As primary production legislation
is the responsibility of various State and Territory portfolios, there will need
to be extensive discussions with Australian jurisdictions and relevant
stakeholders including consumer and food industry representatives before the new
Ministerial Council can decide upon a development process for these standards.
Accordingly, the expertise of the current members of ANZFA would be
expanded to include expertise in the field of primary food production, small
business, trade, government, and the administration of food In keeping with its
whole-of-chain responsibility for the development of food standards, FSANZ would
operate as an independent agency whilst remaining under the Commonwealth Health
and Aged Care portfolio.
There would be no formal Ministerial Council
approval process. Instead, in recognition of Ministerial accountability for
public health and safety, the Ministerial Council would, within a set timeframe,
request the review of existing or proposed standards and ultimately reject a
proposed standard if a jurisdiction represented on the Council considers that it
does not meet certain specified criteria. This would occur where the
jurisdiction considers that the standard is not consistent with the
Council’s policy guidelines or the objectives of the legislation
establishing FSANZ, or that the standard does not protect public health and
safety, promote consistency between domestic and international food standards
that are at variance, or provide adequate information to make informed choices.
The Council would also request a standard be reviewed if a jurisdiction
considers that it is difficult to enforce or comply with in practical or
resource terms or places an unreasonable cost burden on industry or
consumers.
In addition to existing consultative processes for food
standards development, a new stakeholder consultative council or equivalent
consultative mechanism established by the Council would provide the opportunity
for stakeholder involvement in high level strategic decision making processes,
including food regulatory policy and food standards development.
A
formal, inclusive consultative and cooperative process (the Food Standards
Implementation Sub-Committee) would be established under the new Council to
progress the rationalisation of food regulatory functions, improvement of
clarity and consistency of food regulatory approaches and harmonisation of
domestic and export food standards and regulations.
The current food regulatory system would continue to operate under the
current inter-governmental agreement between the Commonwealth, States and
Territories to develop nationally uniform food standards which is reflected in
the 1996 Treaty with New Zealand to develop joint food standards. ANZFA and
ANZFSC would continue to carry out their functions in accordance with the
Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 (the ANZFA Act). ANZFA
would continue to develop and make recommendations to the Council on national
domestic food standards and regulations for Australia and New Zealand and ANZFSC
would continue to make decisions on the adoption of food standards and
regulations. AQIS would continue to exercise its export food regulatory
functions.
The groups likely to be significantly affected by the regulatory
initiative include:
• government – Commonwealth, State and
Territory and local and the Government of New Zealand
• food
industry businesses – primary food producers, food manufacturers, food
retailers, and food service providers supplying either the domestic or export
market
• consumers/the general community.
The significant benefits to government relate to efficiencies
achieved through improved coordination and interaction between Commonwealth,
State and Territory and local government and the integration of food regulatory
agency functions and food standards setting processes.
Business
would benefit from cost savings and market advantages of a reduced food
regulatory burden achieved by a simplified, integrated food regulatory system
and food standards setting process.
Consumers and the community in
general would also benefit from the passing down of these cost savings to
business and from improved clarity and access to information on food regulation
and food safety provided by a single national food regulatory agency.
The cost to government of making the necessary and fundamental
changes to Commonwealth portfolio structures, functions and agencies to
implement the system would be high. Once the new system is in place, the costs
to government of retaining the formal Ministerial Council process of food
standards approval would remain. Given the degree of change proposed by this
option, implementation of the new system will take some time and will disrupt
well established communication and operational networks between business,
consumers and government, resulting in increased costs to
government.
Business would bear increased costs and market
disadvantage from the disruption of established information networks and to
government operations. In moving the food export certification function from
AQIS to ANZFA business would experience increased costs and market disadvantage
due to uncertainty and delay caused by the disruption of the export
certification arrangements. Overseas governments and business have a high level
of confidence in AQIS export certification which could be undermined by this
move. This would have a longer term impact on trade and therefore on food
export businesses.
Given that export standards are developed to meet the
requirements of overseas countries, integration of export and domestic food
regulatory functions would not, of itself, reduce the costs of meeting different
export and domestic food standards. Developing food standards could continue to
involve the current costs and market disadvantages in relation to the time it
takes for standards to be approved and the need to take into account broader
considerations unrelated to public health and safety or economic impacts.
Consumers and the community in general would continue to bear the
public health and safety impact of the time taken to set standards and the
setting of inappropriate standards, as well as the impact of the costs of the
standard setting process on business. The impact on government and business of
the disruption of information networks and government operations during the
transition period would therefore also be felt by consumers.
The benefits to government relate to the efficiencies achieved
through improved coordination and cooperation between Commonwealth,
State/Territory and local government and industry and improved responsiveness
delivered by the streamlining of the domestic food standards setting
process.
Cost savings would also be derived from the simplification of
food regulatory structures and increased transparency and improved decision
making through the direct involvement of the proposed stakeholder consultative
council in high level decision making processes and the greater focus on
technical and economic factors in the standards development process achieved by
the removal of the formal Ministerial Council approval process. The operation
of the food standards development agency as an independent statutory authority
would provide both business and government with further assurance that all
interests are taken into account in the standards setting
process.
Business would benefit directly from cost savings and
market advantages achieved by a streamlined, more responsive food standards
setting process. Cost benefits would also be gained from more appropriate food
standards and regulations achieved by stakeholder input into high level food
regulatory policy and standards development decision making processes, the
cooperative and consultative process for rationalising food regulatory agency
functions and harmonising export and domestic food standards, and the removal of
the formal Ministerial Council approval of standards. An independent national
domestic food standards agency would give primary producers more confidence that
food standards relating to their operations will be reasonable and
appropriate.
Consumers and the community in general would benefit
from these cost savings to business and government and improved public health
and safety outcomes delivered by a more responsive and technically focussed food
standards setting process, the transparency provided by the increased
involvement of consumers in high level strategic decision making processes and
the increased clarity provided by a simplified food regulatory system.
Implementation of the SOWG model would be largely achieved by agreed
formal and inclusive consultative and co-operative processes, together with some
minimal structural changes. At Commonwealth level, government would bear
the costs of establishing the secretariat and formal consultative processes
supporting the operation of the Ministerial Council and the costs of
establishing FSANZ as an independent authority with the increased responsibility
for developing all domestic food standards.
Business, consumers
and the community in general would bear to some extent the costs to
government in effecting these changes. Those businesses which also export food
would continue to bear the costs of dealing with two food regulatory agencies
and different requirements for export and domestic product.
Retaining the current food regulatory system will not require any
government action and will generate no additional costs to government,
business or the community in general.
Government, business and the community will continue to bear the
costs of the current inefficiencies of the current food regulatory system.
Extensive public consultation was undertaken with all stakeholders
(government, industry, business, consumers and the community in general) in the
process of developing the Food Regulation Review Report and its recommendations,
which provide the basis for the development of the model for the new food
regulatory system.
The model for the new food regulatory system referred to
in option 2 was developed through a formal process established by COAG Senior
Officials to develop a whole-of-government response to the Blair Report
recommendations and involved consultation with all relevant Commonwealth and
State/Territory Government Departments. This process included the consideration
of submissions from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Health Ministerial Councils
and from the Governments of all jurisdictions. The New Zealand Government was
consulted in relation to New Zealand involvement in the new food regulatory
system and implications for the Treaty between Australia and New Zealand. Key
food industry organisations, representing all parts of the food supply, chain
consumer and public health groups were informally consulted during the process
of developing the model.
Option 1 involves a high establishment cost to government. Its
implementation will disrupt food regulatory arrangements that will generate
further costs for government, as well as to business and consumers and the
community in general. However, once it is in place, the new system would
achieve a more efficient food standards setting process that would result in
cost savings to government. In particular, it will increase the clarity and
consistency in agency roles and responsibilities and improve the efficiency of
the food standard setting process by integrating all domestic and export food
standards setting arrangements under a single agency and single Ministerial
Council system.
It will reduce the duplication and overlap of food
standards and regulations. It will not, however, keep food standards development
focussed on economic and technical considerations. Because of this, option 1
will contribute to the inclusion of some inappropriate requirements in food
standards which do nothing to enhance the protection of public health and
safety. It depends on the simplified structure to ensure more inclusive
consultation in government decision making, for example, by including primary
industry Ministers on the Ministerial Council and by an industry-wide
consultation network that ensures that all parts of the food supply chain will
have the opportunity to provide their views in the development of food
standards.
Option 2 is the preferred option. It proposes an
approach to food regulatory reform which will achieve a more efficient,
transparent and responsive food standards setting process over time and, as
such, it involves a small establishment cost to government compared with option
1 and will cause minimal disruption to food regulatory processes and hence to
government, business and the community in general.
Like option 1, option
2 proposes a single Ministerial Council, but in this case it is more
representative of food regulatory interests (it provides opportunity for primary
industry, trade and small business interests to be included). It integrates
domestic food standard development processes by incorporating primary industry
food standard development under a single national domestic agency responsible
for domestic food standards development across the whole food supply chain. In
addition, it further improves the efficiency of the standards setting process by
replacing the formal and lengthy Ministerial Council approval process with a
review/reject mechanism that operates within a set timeframe.
Rather than
integrate all food regulatory functions as a way of improving the efficiency of
the food regulatory system, it proposes the establishment of formal and
accountable consultative and co-operative mechanisms to improve the clarity,
transparency and consistency of food regulatory approaches, progress the
rationalisation of compliance and enforcement arrangements and facilitate the
harmonisation of domestic and export food standards. In this way, for example,
it recognises that the export food regulatory functions of AQIS are different
and have different drivers and the importance to business and government of
preserving the high international profile of AQIS. It also takes into account
the rationalisation of food regulatory structures already being put in place by
the States and Territories in their response to the Blair Report
recommendations.
Option 2 includes a formal consultative process with all
stakeholders in high level strategic decision making, in addition to the
consultation process in relation to the development of standards, to ensure
greater opportunity for involvement of industry, business and consumers in food
regulatory policy, food standards development and enforcement and compliance
decision making processes.
The proposals put forward in option 2 will
improve the transparency, responsiveness and timeliness of the food standard
setting process. They will do it over time and, therefore, with minimal
disruption. By integrating domestic food standards setting processes, changing
the role of the Ministerial Council in the standards setting process and
introducing inclusive consultative and co-operative mechanisms, option 2 would
be more effective in improving the clarity and consistency in agency roles and
responsibilities, the efficiency of the food standards setting process, ensuring
appropriate food standards and regulations are made and increasing the
transparency of decision making processes. Option 2 will, however, retain
ministerial oversight of the standards-setting process as Ministers will be able
to seek review of any standard that does not satisfy specified criteria and
ultimately to reject such standards.
Option 3 will not change the
food regulatory system. It will, therefore, not achieve the efficiencies which
would be achieved under options 1 or 2.
Option 2 will improve the
transparency, timeliness and responsiveness of the food standards setting
process with minimal cost impact and disruption and is, therefore, the
recommended option.
Option 2 will be implemented in four ways:
• by the Food
Regulatory Agreement of 3 November 2000 between the
Commonwealth, States and
Territories under which COAG has agreed to the new food regulatory system
developed in response to the Report of the Food Regulation (Blair) Review (the
IGA);
• by this amending Bill that will establish the new statutory
authority Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the new development process
for standards other than primary product standards;
• by amendment of
the Treaty between Australia and New Zealand establishing a System for the
Development of Joint Food Standards made on 5 December 1995; and
• by
the Ministerial Council developing the process for the development of standards
relating to primary products in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
This may involve the need for further legislation.
Under the IGA, the
Commonwealth has agreed to introduce legislation to make changes to the
Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991. The IGA includes
provision for the Commonwealth, States and Territories to jointly conduct a
review of the effectiveness of the agreement within 5 years of the agreement
being signed.
AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2001
Clause 1
The first clause of the Bill provides a short title for the legislation.
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the legislation. Clause 1 (the short title), clause 2 (the commencement provision itself), clause 3 (the commencement of the schedules to the Bill) and Part 3 of Schedule 1 (other technical corrections) will all commence on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Part 2 of Schedule 2 makes a technical correction to fix up a minor incorrect reference to a provision of the Act that was made by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Act 1999. It will be taken to have commenced immediately after that amending Act commenced.
The amendments to the Act (Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill), and the
consequential amendments to other Acts (Schedule 3 to the Bill), will commence
on the day on which amendments to the Treaty between Australia and New Zealand
made on
5 December 1995 establishing a system for the development of joint
food standards (“the Treaty amendments”) enter into force. As soon
as possible thereafter, the Minister will notify the public of this date by a
notice in the Gazette.
The amendments to the Act must be linked to the commencement of the Treaty amendments because The Treaty establishes an “Australia New Zealand Food Standards System” and under the Treaty both countries have agreed to adopt only food standards that have been developed under this system. The Treaty provides that the Australia New Zealand Food Standards System is “based on an extension of the existing Australian system”. The “existing Australian system” is the current Australian food standards system. Under this system the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, upon the recommendation of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, must adopt standards before they are adopted by all jurisdictions.
If the commencement of the legislation is not so linked, and the Treaty is not amended, both countries would be in breach of their obligations under the Treaty if they adopt standards developed under the new food regulatory system to be implemented by this legislation. COAG therefore agreed that those aspects of the new food regulatory system to be implemented under this legislation cannot commence until the Treaty is amended or replaced.
Australia and New Zealand have agreed that it would be preferable to amend the current Treaty to reflect the new food regulatory arrangements rather than replace the whole Treaty.
Clause 3
This clause provides that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 and the other Acts specified are amended in accordance with their respective Schedules to the Bill.
SCHEDULE 1 – AMENDMENT OF THE AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY ACT 1991
Item 1
This item amends the long title of the Act to replace the reference to “an Australia New Zealand Food Authority” with “a body to be known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand”. This is because the Bill establishes a new statutory authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, in place of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (see item 20).
Item 2
This item amends the short title of the Act so that it
will be cited in the future as the “Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Act 1991”.
Section 2A specifies the object of the Act as being to ensure a high standard of public health protection throughout Australia and New Zealand by means of the establishment and operation of a joint Food Authority to achieve specified goals. This item replaces the reference to “a joint Food Authority” in section 2A with a reference to a “joint body to be known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand.”
This item replaces the reference to the “Council” in the
definition of “Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code”
(“the Code”) with a reference to the term “former
Council”. This will ensure that a standard approved by the former
National Food Standards Council or the Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Council will still be a standard within the Code that may be amended in
accordance with the procedure set out in the Act.
This item inserts a definition of “Australia New Zealand Joint Food
Standards Agreement” into the Act. It is defined to mean the Treaty (see
item 2).
This item substitutes a new definition of “Authority” into the Act. All references to “the Authority” in the Act will now mean Food Standards Australia New Zealand, not the Australia New Zealand Food Authority.
The name of the new Authority does not include the word ‘authority’ because the name Food Standards Australia New Zealand was specifically agreed to by COAG. There is precedent for this - other statutory bodies have been established that do not have the type of body included in their name, for example, Air Services Australia.
Unlike ANZFA, the so-called “board members” of which are actually members of the Authority itself, FSANZ will have a formally established Board to conduct the affairs of the Authority. The arrangement is similar to that which applies to the Australian National Library and the Australian National Gallery. It implements the structure for FSANZ that was agreed to by COAG under the Food Regulation Agreement 2000.
This item inserts a definition of “business day” into the Act. The term is used in section 25 regarding urgent applications and proposals (see item 81).
This item inserts a new definition of “Council” into the Act. The “Council”, for the purposes of the Act, will now mean the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council instead of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council. The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council is the new Council established by the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 (see Outline).
This item inserts a definition of “develop” into the Act. A function of the new Authority is to develop standards and variations of standards. This definition explains what this means.
This item deletes the definition of “Food Advisory Committee” from the Act. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Advisory Committee will no longer exist under the new food regulatory arrangements. Under the new system, there will be a Standing Committee on Food Regulation to provide advice to the Ministerial Council in undertaking its policy development role. There will also be an implementation committee to assist the Food Regulation Standing Committee (see Outline). The implementation committee will develop guidelines on food regulations and standards enforcement activities aimed at achieving a consistent approach across jurisdictions to the way regulations and standards are interpreted and enforced.
Section 43 of the Act also provides the Authority with the capacity to establish other committees to assist it in carrying out its functions, to be exercised in accordance with any directions of the Ministerial Council (see item 132).
This item inserts a definition of “Food Regulation Agreement
2000” into the Act. This is the Inter-Governmental Agreement signed by
COAG on 3 November 2000 that sets out the framework for the new food regulatory
system.
This item inserts a definition of “former Council” into the Act. A “former Council” means either the former Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council or the former National Food Standards Council. The term is used in the definition of “Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code”.
Item 14
This item substitutes the word “Board” for the word “Authority” in the definition of “member” in the Act. A reference to a “member” in the Act will now be to a member of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Board, not to a member of ANZFA.
Item 15
This item inserts a definition of “New Zealand lead Minister on the Council” into the Act. This definition is necessary because it is this Minister who nominates the New Zealand members of the Board (see item 118).
Item 16
This item includes in the definition of “standard” a standard made under the Act after the commencement of this Schedule. This is necessary to include as “standards” within the meaning of the Act any standards that are made under the new food regulatory arrangements, that is, standards that are not adopted by a former Council, and standards that will not be included in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
Item 17
This item changes the reference to the “Council” in the definition of “standard” to a reference to the “former Council”.
This item substitutes a new subsection for subsection 3(2). It makes clear that the reference to the “amendment of the standards in (the Code)” in the definition of the “Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code” has always enabled the insertion, revocation or substitution of a standard in that Code. It also makes clear that the capacity to vary a food regulatory measure (that is, a standard or a code of practice) has always included the capacity to revoke such a food regulatory measure.
This item makes a very minor change to the heading to Part 2.
This item amends subsection 6(1) to deal with the transition from the current corporate governance arrangements to the new corporate governance arrangements. The body known as ANZFA will be continued in existence as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. This approach, which involves “recycling” the corporate shell of ANZFA, is much simpler to create legally than a new body corporate. It is also considerably less expensive. Food Standards Australia New Zealand will have a different corporate structure to ANZFA.
A note will also be inserted into the Bill referring to section 25B of the Acts Interpretation Act. That section sets out the effect of an alteration by an Act to the name of a body and to the constitution of a body.
Item 21
This item amends the function specified in paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Act to make clear that a function of the Authority is to develop standards and also to review standards. This amendment is necessary because under the new food regulatory arrangements the Authority is charged with developing food standards, not with the development of draft standards for adoption by a Ministerial Council as is ANZFA under the current system. The amendment also reflects the fact that the new Authority must review proposed or existing standards if requested by the new Council.
This item omits the word “draft” wherever it occurs in paragraph 7(1)(b). The new Authority will not be developing ‘drafts’ of codes of practice; it will be developing codes of practice.
This item provides the Authority with a new function: such other functions as are conferred upon it by the Act.
This item inserts a new subparagraph 9(1)(a)(ia). That part of current paragraph 9(1)(b) that provides that a matter that may be included in standards and variations of standards is the maximum or minimum amounts of additives that must or may be used in the preparation of food fits better within subsection 9(1)(a), as that paragraph deals with the composition of food, and additives are components of food.
This item amends paragraph 9(1)(b) to delete “additives” as a matter about which standards may be made, as that matter will be included in new subparagraph 9(1)(a)(ia).
This item omits the references to “dealing with” in
paragraphs 9(1)(e), (f) and (g) because the accepted terminology within the
domestic food regulatory industry is that food is “handled”, not
“dealt with”. The definition of “dealing” will therefore
be deleted (see item 32 below). The current term “dealing” causes
confusion as it is currently defined to incorporate matters that are usually
thought of as part of the handling of food.
These items replace all the references to dealing with food within
paragraphs (i)(i), (i)(ii), (j) and (m) of subsection 9(1), with references to
handling food, for the reason given in item 27 above.
This item substitutes a new subsection for subsection 9(3). It replaces
the definition of the term “dealing” with a definition of the term
“handle”. “Handle” is defined to mean, in relation to
food, as including produce, collect, receive, store, serve, display, package,
transport, dispose or recall food. This definition captures the matters set out
in the definition of “handle” in the Model Food Bill which was part
of the Intergovernmental Agreement signed by COAG. An editorial note is also
included under this definition to remind the reader that “produce”
is defined in subsection 3(1) as including “prepare” and
“prepare” as including “process, manufacture and treat”.
The Macquarie Dictionary definition of the term “package” ensures
that it includes “pack”.
This inclusive definition is
designed to ensure that all aspects of handling food are matters about which the
Authority may develop standards. The inclusion of the term “collect”
in the definition does not exclude other similar activities being part of the
“handling of food”, for example, harvesting, gathering or
slaughtering. This term was chosen as representative of that aspect of the food
supply chain. In addition, the inclusive nature of the term is also designed to
ensure that the natural meaning of the term ‘handle’ is preserved.
This item is a transitional provision that makes clear that the above
amendments to the matters about which standards may be made do not affect the
validity of standards or codes of practice in force immediately before the
commencement of the transitional provision.
The item also amends the heading to section 10 accordingly.
This item makes a minor amendment by omitting “food.” in
paragraph 10(1)(d) and substituting “food;”.
This item includes in subsection 10(2) an additional matter to which the
Authority must have regard when developing food regulatory measures and
variations of food regulatory measures - any written policy principles
formulated by the Council that it notifies to the Authority. This item was
amended in the Senate. It previously provided that the Council would formulate
policy guidelines, in accordance with the COAG decision that the Council was to
develop policy guidelines for the guidance of FSANZ when it develops food
standards. ANZFA currently does not have to have regard to ministerial
guidelines.
Although the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 provides that
Food Standards Australia New Zealand is to develop standards “in
accordance with” any policy guidelines set down by the Council, the Bill
as introduced provided that the Authority must “have regard to” such
policy guidelines. This arrangement was retained in relation to policy
principles. This is because policy principles are not directions as to how
particular decisions are to be made, but principles to be taken into
consideration when making decisions.
New subsections 10(4) and (5) were included by Senate amendment. They
will enable the Authority to provisionally adopt sanitary and phytosanitary
measures on the basis of available pertinent scientific information. These
measures will be adopted by the Authority only where the Authority itself
considers that the best available scientific evidence is insufficient. The
wording of these new provisions is consistent with that of the World Trade
Organisation’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures.
This item inserts a new section 10AA into the Act. This new section was a
Senate amendment. It provides the Council with the authority to issue policy
principles in relation to the development of food standards. It also provides
that these policy principles will be disallowable instruments for the purposes
of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. This means that they will be disallowable
by either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
This item inserts a new Division 1 into the Act before current Division 1
of
Part 3 (current Division 1 of Part 3 will become new Division 2 of Part 3
– see
Item 39). New Division 1 consists of two sections only –
sections 11A and 11B. Section 11A will set out a simplified explanation of the
process for the development or variation of standards. Section 11B inserts
relevant definitions of terms used in Part 3.
This item substitutes a new heading for Division 1 of Part 3 of the
Act.
The new heading indicates that this Division (to now be Division 2) sets
out the process to be used for the development and variation of food regulatory
measures as a result of both applications and proposals.
New Division 2
merges the processes currently used by ANZFA to develop food regulatory measures
as a result of an application by a body or a person, or as a result of a
proposal raised by ANZFA itself. At present, the processes are set out in
separate Divisions in Part 3 – Division 1 and Division 2. Current Division
2 will be deleted (see item 81).
As the process is substantially the
same, the current separation into two Divisions is not necessary. The new
Authority will follow the process set out in the one Division (Division 2) for
the development of these measures, whether or not the impetus for their
development is an application or a proposal.
This item omits the word “preliminary” from subparagraph
12(2)(c) and replaces it with the word “initial”. This has the
effect of changing the reference to “the preliminary assessment” to
a reference to “the initial assessment”. A number of similar changes
have been made elsewhere to references in other sections to this and other
stages of the food regulatory measure development process.
This is
because the names of the three stages of development of food regulatory measures
and variations of those measures will be changed. ANZFA has consulted with
stakeholders and the result of that consultation is that the following terms
more accurately describe the actual stages of the process:
• “Initial Assessment” instead of “Preliminary
Assessment”
• “Draft Assessment” instead of
“Full Assessment”
• “Final Assessment” instead
of “Inquiry”.
This item inserts a new section 12AA after section 12. The new section
provides that the Authority may prepare a proposal for the development or
variation of a food regulatory measure, and that the proposal must be in
writing. This new section is similar to current section 21.
This item amends section 12A to make clear that the application that an
applicant may withdraw is the applicant’s own application.
This item repeals paragraphs 12A(1)(a) and (b) and substitutes new
paragraphs. The changes are necessary because the Authority, unlike ANZFA, will
not be making recommendations to the Council that it adopt, adopt with
amendments, or reject a draft standard or variation. Instead, Food Standards
Australia New Zealand will be approving standards itself, and the Council will
be able to have them reviewed by the Authority, or reject them, if it considers
they do not meet the criteria specified in the Food Regulation Agreement
2000.
This item changes the reference to “the full assessment” in
paragraph 12B(2)(a) to a reference to “the draft assessment” (see
item 40).
This item replaces the reference to “holding an inquiry” in
paragraph 12B(2)(e) with a reference to “making a final assessment”
(see item 40).
This item replaces the references to “preliminary” in section
13 with references to “initial”. A note is inserted also altering
the heading in the same way (see item 40).
This item amends section 13A by replacing the word
“preliminary” with the word “initial”, and makes similar
changes to the heading to that section (see item 40).
This item amends paragraph 13A(2)(b) by replacing the word
“preliminary” with the word “initial” (see item
40).
This item amends paragraph 14(3)(b) by replacing the words “a
preliminary” with the word “an initial” and changes the
heading to section 14 to make clear that it deals with the Authority inviting
submissions about applications.
This item amends paragraph 14(3)(c) to replace the word
“full” with the word “draft” (see item 40).
This item inserts a new section 14A after section 14. The new section is
similar to current section 22 except that it refers to a “draft
assessment” instead of to a “full assessment” (see item 40).
It has been included in new Division 2 because that Division will set out the
development process for food regulatory measures that are a result of both
applications and proposals.
This item replaces the word “full” wherever it occurs in
section 15 with the word “draft” and makes similar changes to the
heading to that section (see item 40).
This item inserts new section 15AA after section 15. The new section is
similar to section 23, except that it refers to a “draft
assessment”, not a “full assessment” (see item 40), and does
not include an equivalent to subsection 23(3), as that is positioned beneath the
equivalent provision in relation to applications (see item 55 below).
This item replaces the word “full” wherever it occurs in
section 15A(1) with the word “draft” and makes similar changes to
the heading to that section (see item 40).
This item inserts a new subsection 15B after section 15A. The new section
is equivalent to current subsection 23(3).
This item amends paragraph 16(1)(a) to make clear that section 16 only
applies to draft food regulatory measures prepared as a result of an
application. It is necessary because new Division 2 will apply to both
applications and proposals (see item 39) and a distinction needs to be made that
the Authority can only charge for applications. A similar amendment is made to
the heading to section 16.
These items amend various paragraphs that refer to the holding of an
inquiry so that they refer instead to the making of a final assessment (see item
40).
This item amends paragraph 17(1)(a) in a similar way to the amendment
made by item 56 to paragraph 16(1)(a) and for the same reasons.
These items amend various paragraphs that refer to the holding of an
inquiry so that they refer instead to the making of a final assessment (see item
40).
This item inserts a new section 17AA after section 17. The new section is
similar to current section 24. It is necessary because new Division 2 will now
apply to both applications and proposals (see item 39).
This item inserts a new section 17AB after section 17A that is equivalent
to section 25 (see item 39).
This item amends subsection 17B(1) so that it refers to the making of a
final assessment instead of to holding an inquiry (see item 40).
This item amends paragraph 17B(3)(a) to make clear that the Authority
need only notify the applicant of its decision in relation to a code of practice
if the relevant draft code of practice was the result of an application.
This item inserts after paragraph 17B(3)(c) a new paragraph (aa) that
ensures that the Authority must provide the Council with written notice of its
decision to approve or reject a code of practice.
This item inserts a reference to section 14A into paragraph 17B(3)(c).
This insertion ensures that the Council, when approving or rejecting a code of
practice, must also notify any body or person who made a submission in response
to a notice inviting submissions about a proposal to develop such a code.
Section 17 will now deal with notification in relation to decisions made about
codes of practice developed as a result of both applications and proposals. This
is necessary because the current section 25A will no longer exist as current
Division 2 will be deleted (see item 81).
This item repeals section 18 and substitutes a new section 18. The new
section 18 provides that after the Authority has made a final assessment in
relation to a draft standard or variation of a standard, it must approve the
draft, approve it subject to amendments, or reject the draft.
This
process is different to the current process whereby ANZFA recommends to the
Council that it adopt a draft standard or variation that ANZFA has prepared,
adopt it with amendments, or reject it. Under the new process, the Authority
itself will develop and approve standards and variations of standards. The
Council will be able to request up to two reviews of such a food regulatory
measure, and will then be able to amend or reject it, provided it considers that
the standard or variation as finally approved by the Authority still does not
meet one or more of the criteria specified in clause 3(e) of the Food Regulation
Agreement 2000.
The item also inserts a note that reminds readers that
the Board cannot delegate its powers to act on behalf of the Authority under
this important section.
This item amends subsection 19(1) so that it refers to the making of a
final assessment instead of the holding of an inquiry, and makes similar changes
to the heading to that section (see item 40).
This item amends paragraph 19(1)(a) to make clear that the Authority need
only give notice of the outcome of a final assessment to an applicant if the
relevant draft standard or variation was the result of an application by the
applicant.
This item amends paragraphs 19(1)(c) and (d) so that they refer to
sections 16, 17 and 17AA. This amendment is necessary so that bodies or persons
other than an applicant or appropriate government agencies who made submissions
to final assessments made in relation to a draft standard or variation that was
the result of a proposal are notified. Section 19 will now deal with
notification in relation to the outcome of final assessments concerning
standards and variations of standards developed as a result of both applications
and proposals. This is necessary because the current section 27 (regarding
notification of the outcome of proposals) will no longer exist as current
Division 2 of Part 3 will be deleted (see item 81).
This item amends paragraph 19(2)(a) to take account of the fact that the
Authority will no longer be making recommendations to a Ministerial Council, but
instead will be notifying the Council of decisions it makes in relation to the
approval or rejection of draft standards.
This item amends paragraph 19(2)(b) to refer to a “decision”
of the Authority instead of a recommendation of the Authority (see reasoning at
item 78).
This item substitutes a new section for section 20. The new section lists
the things that the Authority must provide to the Council if it approves a draft
standard or variation when it notifies the Council of that approval.
The
notification provided by the Authority to the Council will act as a
‘trigger’ for the Council to examine the draft to see if it wishes
to request a review.
The Council may direct the Authority to provide it with
additional information to enable it to make a decision about the draft. The
direction does not have to be in writing but may only be made if the Council has
made a resolution to make the direction.
The Authority must also publish
on the internet a copy of all draft standards or variations that it has approved
and has notified, or will shortly notify, to the Council together with an
explanation of how the Council may deal with the approved standard. This will
enable interested persons to follow the progress of the standard or variation
through the Council process.
This item repeals current Divisions 1A, 2 and 2A of Part 3 of the Act,
and substitutes new Divisions 3, 4 and 5.
New Division 3 sets
out what is to happen if the Council requests a review of any draft standard or
variation approved by the Authority.
New Section 21 sets out how the
Council can request a first review of an approved draft standard or variation.
It obliges the Council, within the stated timeframe, either to request a review
or inform the Authority that it does not intend to request a review. In
accordance with the Food Regulation Agreement 2000, the Council must request
FSANZ to review a proposed standard (including a variation) or an existing
standard if any jurisdiction represented on the Council considers that one or
more of the criteria specified in item 3(e) of that Agreement applies to the
standard. Under new subsection 21(5) (see below) the Authority must accede to
the request.
A decision to notify the Authority that the Council does
not propose to request a review of a standard would need, in accordance with the
ordinary quorum for decisions by the Council, to be supported by a simple
majority of all jurisdictions.
This arrangement was included by Senate
amendment. It is different to the arrangement specified in the Food Regulation
Agreement (and in section 21 as introduced) for such standards. The arrangement
originally proposed was that the Authority could proceed to publish such a
standard if 60 days had passed after Council was notified of the standard, even
if all jurisdictions had not responded within those 60 days.
Any review
requested by the Council (including a second review) is to be conducted by the
Authority in any way it considers appropriate, subject to any directions
provided by the Council, and within three months unless the Council specifies
another longer period. The Council could, for example, direct the Authority to
consult in a particular way (for example, by holding a public hearing) or with
certain stakeholders.
The Authority, after completing the review, can
decide to re-affirm its approval of the draft, re-affirm it with amendments, or
withdraw its approval.
Subsection 21(7) makes clear that the Council has
to comply with the rules set out in the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 when
making decisions in relation to standards.
The Council will also request
a review if the New Zealand lead minister considers either those criteria, or
the two additional criteria specified in the Treaty as amended, apply to the
standard or variation.
New Section 22 specifies what happens if the
Council requests a second review. The process is the same. However, the Council
can only inform the Authority that it does not intend to request it to review a
standard if a majority of the jurisdictions on the Council have responded to the
effect that the Authority is not to review the draft. The Authority will only
review a standard a second time if a majority of the jurisdictions represented
on the Council indicate that they wish such a review.
New section 23
provides that the Council may amend or reject a standard that has been reviewed
twice. However, if the Council wants to amend the standard, it is to provide the
Authority with an opportunity to submit a draft of the text of any amendment to
be made. The Council does not have to agree to the proposed text. The
opportunity for the Authority to provide such text will ensure that any Council
approved amendments to a standard or variation will be consistent with the
language and style of the remainder of the Code. It will also enable the Council
to take account of other relevant matters in the Code that may have an impact on
the draft concerning which the Council may not be aware.
The section
also provides that if the Council rejects a draft standard or variation after a
second review, it must prepare a notice setting out its decision, and the
reasons for that decision. It must then provide a copy of the notice to the
Authority and publish it on the Internet.
New Division 4 sets out
how a standard or variation is to be published.
New section 23A
provides that a standard or variation that the Council has informed the
Authority it will not review, amend or reject, is to be published by the
Authority as soon as practicable. It also provides that the Authority is to
publish a standard that the Council has amended. Publication comprises
publishing notice of the standard in the Gazettes of Australia and New Zealand
and making the notice and the text of the standard available for inspection by
the public and on the Internet.
New subsections 23(4) and 23(5) are
explanatory provisions. The first explains what is meant by “made under
this Act” and the second explains the effect of the use of the phrase
“draft as so amended” on other sections. Subsection 23(5) is also
replicated in subsection 26(5) in relation to standards developed
urgently.
New Division 5 sets out the procedure to be followed in
relation to urgent applications and proposals. This procedure replaces the
procedure currently followed by ANZFA in relation to the development of
standards or variations to be developed as a matter of urgency (the
“section 37 standards”).
It was considered appropriate that
the only type of standards or variations that should be able to be developed by
the new Authority under the shortened process specified in Division 5 should be
those that are necessary to be developed urgently in order to protect public
health and safety. The wording of new section 24 therefore differs from the
current section 37, which provides that standards developed under that section
can be developed “in order to avoid compromising the objectives set out in
section 10”. Safeguards are built into the Division to ensure that
adequate consultation is still to be undertaken in relation to these standards
(see below).
New section 24 provides that if the Authority considers it
appropriate to do so to protect public health and safety, it can declare that a
specified application or proposal is urgent and therefore the provisions of
Division 5, and not most of those of the other Divisions of Part 3, apply to its
development. Such a declaration is to be published by the Authority on the
Internet and, because of amendments made to this section in the Senate, also in
a newspaper circulating in each State or Territory and in New
Zealand.
New section 25 sets out how a draft standard or variation is to
be prepared in relation to an urgent application or proposal. It also provides
that the Authority must publish on the Internet a copy of the draft and a notice
inviting interested persons to make written submissions to the Authority in
relation to the draft.
The Internet is the primary source of information
for industry and consumer bodies regarding the development of food standards by
ANZFA. It is expected that this will continue to be the case for standards
developed by FSANZ. The ANZFA website is visited regularly by these and other
stakeholders. FSANZ is to conduct an information exercise to remind stakeholders
that they should visit this website regularly, and to inform them that any
declarations FSANZ makes in relation to urgency standards, and related notices
inviting submissions, will be published on the Internet and in newspapers.
Interested persons will have 10 business days to make submissions,
unless the Authority specifies a shorter period. The Authority would generally
only specify a shorter period in circumstances where a shorter period is
necessary to enable the standard to commence very quickly in order to protect
public health and safety.
New section 26 provides that the Authority must
give due regard to any written submissions it receives about the draft standard
before approving, amending or rejecting it. It then specifies how the Authority
is to gazette the standard and provide notice of the standard on the Internet
and in newspapers.
New section 27 provides that the Authority, after
preparing an urgent standard or variation, must complete a final assessment in
relation to that draft as soon as practicable, and in any event within twelve
months. This provision is similar to the current system under which ANZFA must
complete an inquiry into a previously adopted standard that was developed as a
matter of urgency. However, it differs from that system in that it mandates a
timeframe for completion of that stage of consultation.
New section 28
provides that after completing a final assessment in relation to an urgent
standard or variation, the Authority must decide to re-affirm the standard or
variation, prepare a proposal for a variation, or further variation of the
standard, or a replacement standard. In the meantime, the urgent standard or
variation will remain in force, until it is varied or replaced following
completion of the usual proposal process.
The Council may direct the
Authority to provide it with additional information to enable it to make a
decision about the draft. The direction does not have to be in writing but may
only be made if the Council has made a resolution to make the direction.
New sections 28A and 28B deal with a request by the Council for a first
review of a re-affirmed urgent standard or variation, and a second review of
such a standard or variation, respectively. The normal processes for a first
review request also apply to a second review request.
Two notes are
inserted after both these sections that make it clear that the Board cannot
delegate its powers under these subsections, and noting the existence of section
28D that deals with the situation where the Authority does not re-affirm the
standard or variation but decides to raise a proposal instead.
New
section 28C provides that the Council may revoke or amend an urgent standard or
variation after a second review has been completed by the Authority. The process
is the same as if the Council had decided to amend or reject a non-urgent
standard or variation after a second review, except that the Council has the
power to revoke, rather than to reject, as the standard (because it was
developed as a matter of urgency) is already in force. The Council is to
provide the Authority with an opportunity to submit to the council a draft of
the text of any amendment to be made by the Council. The Council does not have
to agree to that proposed text.
The opportunity for the Authority to
provide such text will ensure that any Council approved amendments to the
standard or variation will be consistent with the language and style of the
remainder of the Code. It will also enable the Council to take account of other
relevant matters in the Code that may have an impact on the draft concerning
which the Council may not be aware.
Section 28C also provides that if
the Council revokes or amends a draft standard or variation after a second
review, it must prepare a notice setting out its decision, and the reasons for
that decision. It must then provide a copy of the notice to the Authority and
publish it on the Internet and in newspapers.
New section 28D sets out
how the system is to operate for variations or replacements of standards
developed as a matter of urgency. The full proposal process does not have to be
followed. Instead, the Authority only has to conduct one round of consultation
and and publish in newspapers and on the Internet a notice setting out its
decision that it is appropriate to deal with the variation or replacement
standard under the arrangements applicable to the development of urgency
standards.
This shortened process may only to be followed if the
Authority is still of the view that the variation or replacement standard needs
to commence urgently in order to protect public health and safety.
This item substitutes a new heading for Division 3 of Part 3:
“Division 6 – Miscellaneous”.
See discussion at item 40.
This item inserts a new subsection (3) into section 30A to make it clear
that the requirements of section 30A in relation to notification do not apply to
notices that the Authority is to provide to the Council in relation to the
approval of standards.
This item repeals section 31. This is because under the new food
regulatory system the Council will not be able to return a draft standard to the
Authority for reconsideration. Instead, it may request the Authority to review a
standard, or eventually reject a standard.
This item repeals section 32. This is because under the new food
regulatory system the Council will not be adopting draft standards or
variations, and the procedure for publication of the standards and variations of
standards approved by the Authority is dealt with in new Division 4 of Part 3.
These items amend section 33, which deals with the review of food
regulatory measures. The new section implements the requirement of the Food
Regulatory Agreement 2000 that the Council can request the Authority to review
an existing standard. An existing standard means a standard in the Code as at
the time of the request.
The procedure for review of such a standard is
the same as the procedure for a review requested by the Council of a proposed
standard or variation. After completing the review, the Authority may decide to
prepare a proposal for the development of a food standard or variation. The
Council can only request one review of an existing standard.
See discussion at item 40.
This item amends subsections 35(1) and (1A) so that they refer to
decisions under section 18 instead of to “recommendation to the
Council”. This is because, unlike ANZFA, the Authority will not be making
recommendations to the Council.
This item makes a minor amendment to the work plan arrangements for FSANZ
in relation to the time limit for FSANZ to deal with certain applications
allocated in the work plan. This amendment rectifies an unintended consequence
made by the current wording of this section.
This item omits the reference to making a recommendation in subsection
35(2) as the Authority, unlike ANZFA, will not be making recommendations to the
Council.
See discussion at item 40.
This item substitutes the reference to section 21 in paragraph 36(1)(b)
with a reference to section 12AA. Proposals will now be prepared under that
section as both applications and proposals will be prepared in accordance with
the process specified in Division 2 of Part 3.
This item amends subsection 36(1A) to enable the Authority to omit the
draft assessment stage in relation to an application or proposal if it is
satisfied that to do so will not have a significant adverse effect on the
interest of anyone, or the application or proposal raises issues of minor
significance or complexity only.
This differs from the current situation
whereby ANZFA can omit to conduct the inquiry stage in relation to these types
of applications and proposals. Under the new arrangements FSANZ will be
conducting more thorough final assessments than the inquiries now conducted by
ANZFA. The ability of the Authority to omit the final assessment (inquiry) stage
should therefore be changed so that it can instead omit the less significant
draft (full) assessment stage in the circumstances specified above.
These items substitute references to certain sections that have been
repealed with references to their equivalent sections under the new food
regulatory system set out in the legislation.
This section repeals section 37 that sets out how ANZFA develops
“urgency standards”. A new system for the development of these
standards is set out in new Division 5 (see item 81).
This item substitutes references to members of the Authority with
references to a “member of the Board” (see discussion at item 7).
This item amends paragraph 39(4)(c) to enable the Chief Executive Officer
of the Authority to disclose confidential commercial information to bodies as
well as persons to whom he or she thinks is expressly or impliedly authorised to
obtain that information. This would enable the CEO, for example, to disclose it
to committees that may be established to assist ANZFA, but only if the CEO
thinks that they are authorised to obtain it.
This item repeals the definition of “committee” in subsection
39(11) because the Food Advisory Committee will no longer exist in the new food
regulatory system (see discussion at item 11).
This item substitutes a new heading for the heading to Part 4. The new
heading refers to the Board instead of to the Authority. This reflects the
structure of FSANZ, which has a different structure to ANZFA (see discussion at
item 7 and item 20).
This item substitutes a new heading for the heading to Division 1 of Part
4 to refer to the Board, not to meetings of the Authority (see discussion at
item 7).
This item inserts a new section 39 into the Act. The new section establishes
a Board of the Authority. Unlike ANZFA, the “board members” of which
are actually members of the Authority itself, FSANZ will have a formally
established Board to conduct the affairs of the Authority. The arrangement is
similar to that which applies to the Australian National Library and the
Australian National Gallery. It implements the structure for FSANZ that was
agreed to by COAG under the Food Regulation Agreement 2000.
This item amends subsection 40(1) and the heading to section 40 to refer
to the Board, not the Authority (see discussion at item 116).
This item amends section 40 to provide that the Board will have twelve
members. This item reflects amendments that were made in the Senate. The
previous version of the item as introduced into the Senate implemented the COAG
decision reflected in the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 that the Board was to
have a maximum of ten members.
The Board of the Authority will have
twelve members: the Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer, two members
nominated by the New Zealand lead Minister on the Council, a member nominated by
consumer organisations, a member nominated by the National Health and Medical
Resource Council, four members nominated by scientific and public health
organisations and two members nominated by food industry organisations or public
bodies. All members (other than the CEO) must have expertise in one or more of
the areas specified in item 120 of the Bill (see below).
The current
mandatory requirement that one of the members of the ANZFA Board be an officer
of a State or Territory authority with responsibility for matters relating to
public health has not been retained. The membership of the Food Regulation
Standing Committee, and the Implementation Sub-Committee (see Outline), will
ensure these authorities have adequate input into the new food regulatory
system. The requirement for a member nominated by the NH&MRC will also
ensure that public health views are adequately considered by the Ministerial
Council and the Authority. The new Board will not have special purpose members.
This item deletes subsection 40(2) and inserts new subsections into
section 40. The new subsections provide that the Minister is to appoint all
members of the Board except for the Chief Executive Officer, who is to be
appointed by the Board (see item 146 below). The Minister is only to appoint
these persons (except the two persons nominated by the New Zealand lead
minister) with the agreement of the Council. The appointments of the two New
Zealand members of the Board do not have to be agreed to by the Council. This is
because New Zealand wished the current arrangements, whereby the New Zealand
members of ANZFA are simply appointed by the Australian Minister on the
nomination of the New Zealand Health Minister, to be reflected in the new
arrangements.
New subsection 40(2) ensures, however, that the
Minister must consult the Council in relation to the proposed appointments of
the New Zealand members of the Board.
Item 120
This item
repeals subsections 40(3) and 40(4) and inserts new subsection 40(3). New
subsection 40(3) ensures that the Board of the new Authority will have a wider
range of expertise than do the current members of ANZFA because over time it
will be dealing with a wider range of food standards. Additional areas of
expertise that currently do not have to be represented on ANZFA but that may be
included on the new Board are consumer affairs (instead of “consumer
rights”), food allergy, medical science, microbiology, food safety,
biotechnology, veterinary science, the food industry, food processing, primary
food production, small business, international trade, government and food
regulation. The current reference to “experience” has been removed
because the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 only refers to
“expertise”.
Amendments have been made to this item in the
Senate. The areas of expertise originally proposed for Board members reflected
the areas of expertise listed in the Food Regulation Agreement 2000.
This item is a transitional provision that enables the regulations that
are needed to list the scientific, public health and food industry
organisations, as well as the public bodies, that will nominate persons for
selection to the Board to be made before the food regulatory reforms included in
the Bill commence. This will enable the membership of the new Board to be
decided upon before the new arrangements commence. This provision will commence
when the Bill receives Royal Assent (see item 2).
This item makes a minor amendment to subsection 40(5) to refer to a new
paragraph.
This item repeals subsection 40(6) as there will not be special purpose
members on the Board.
This item substitutes the word “Board” for the word
“Authority” wherever it appears in subsections 40(9) (see discussion
at item 116).
This item is a transitional provision for the new Board. It terminates
the appointments of the current members of ANZFA. Appointments will be made in
accordance with the new requirements.
This item deletes the reference in subsections 41(1) to special purpose
members. The new Board will not have special purpose members.
This item provides that a FSANZ Board member will hold office for a fixed
period of four years. This is different to the current situation whereby ANZFA
board members hold office for “the period, not exceeding five years,
specified in the instrument of appointment”. In practice, most ANZFA Board
members hold office for three years.
This item repeals subsection 41(3) as it deals with the appointment of
special purpose members and the new Board will not have special purpose
members.
This item provides that a FSANZ Board member can only be appointed for
two terms.
This item adds a new subsection (5) at the end of section 41 that will
allow the Board to have a full complement of members in cases where there may be
a delay in appointing a new member, or extending the appointment of a current
member. The provision enables a current member of the Board to continue in
office for a maximum period of six months after his period of appointment is
completed. The provision could be used, for example, if it takes some time for
the Ministerial Council to agree to an appointment. The new subsection ensures
that the member can only continue in office after the expiry of the period of
his or her appointment for a maximum of six months, that is, until the Minister
makes a decision regarding the reappointment of the member.
The item
also ensures that the Minister cannot appoint a person as the Chairperson of the
Authority if, in the two years prior to the appointment, the person has worked
for or has had pecuniary interests in a body corporate whose primary commercial
activity related directly to the production or manufacture of food.
This item repeals section 42. Section 42 deals with the Australia New
Zealand Food Authority Advisory Committee. This Committee will no longer exist
under the new food regulatory arrangements (see discussion at item 11).
This item substitutes the references in section 43 to the Authority with
a reference to the Board. The Board will decide whether or not to establish
committees to assist it in carrying out its functions.
This item amends the heading to section 43 to no longer refer to the Food
Advisory Committee (otherwise known as the Australia New Zealand Food Authority
Advisory Committee).
This item includes new subsections at the end of section 43. The effect
of these subsections is that the Council may provide directions to the Authority
in relation to its exercise of powers regarding the establishment of committees
under section 43, and the directions it may give to those committees.
If
the Ministerial Council directs the Authority to give a committee a certain
direction, the Authority must comply with that direction. For example, the
Ministerial Council may direct the Authority not to establish, or to abolish, a
particular committee. It may also direct it to direct a committee as to the
meeting procedure it is to follow, or the particular matters it is to deal with.
The purpose of this section is to enable the Council to ensure the integrity of
the new food regulatory committee system is retained.
This item abolishes any existing committees established by the Authority
under section 43. This means that ANZFAAC will be abolished (see item 11).
This item amends subsection 44(1) so that it applies only to members of
the Board and of other committees, but not to members of the Food Advisory
Committee. That Committee will no longer exist (see item 11).
This item omits the reference in subsection 46(2) to special purpose members.
The new Board will not have special purpose members.
This item amends section 47 to substitute the references to the Authority
with references to the Board. The section as amended will refer to meetings of
the Board.
This item omits the reference in subsection 47(4) to special purpose
members. The new Board will not have special purpose members.
These items amend sections 47 and 48 respectively to substitute for the
references to the Authority references to the Board. The section as amended will
refer to meetings of the Board.
Item 140
At present,
section 50 of the Act obliges members of ANZFA to notify the Minister of any
“direct or indirect pecuniary interest” they have in a matter being
considered, or about to be considered, by ANZFA. Under the Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies Act 1997 they are also obliged to notify of
“material personal interest” they have in a matter. The current
requirement of the Act that they notify of any “direct or indirect
pecuniary interest” they may have was placed upon them before the
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 commenced, and the two
obligations causes some confusion. To clarify the obligations of the new Board,
this item amends section 50 so that Board members need only notify of any
“material personal interest” that they have in a matter. This would
include pecuniary interests. They would then be subject to the same obligations
as directors of other Commonwealth authorities.
The item also makes
clear that the obligation of Board members to declare their material personal
interests also obliges them to declare any such interests they may have in
relation to their academic or research associations.
Item
141
This item amends section 50 to refer to the “Board”
and not to the Authority.
This item inserts two additional subsections into section 50. They
provide that the Board has to develop and maintain a system for the declaration
and registration of the material personal interests of its members, and publish
the entries on that register on the Internet.
This item amends paragraph 52(2)(d) to omit the mention of a special
purpose member.
This item substitutes the reference to the Authority in paragraph
52(2)(d) with a reference to the Board.
These items amend subsection 52(2) to omit the reference to special
purpose members.
This item replaces the reference to the Minister with a reference to the
Board in subsection 52A(2) as, in accordance with the Food Regulation Agreement
2000, it will be the Board who appoints the Chief Executive Officer under the
new arrangements.
This item ensures that the Minister cannot appoint a person as the Chief
Executive Office of FSANZ if, “at any time immediately before the proposed
period of appointment”, the person has worked for or has had pecuniary
interests in a body corporate whose primary commercial activity related directly
to the production or manufacture of food. This differs from the arrangement for
the Chairperson of the Board who, if he or she had such a pecuniary interest
before the two years immediately before the proposed period of appointment,
could be so appointed.
This item is a transitional provision. It provides that the person who is
Chief Executive Officer of ANZFA when Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill commences
will remain as Chief Executive Officer of FSANZ for six months, or until the
Board re-appoints that person to that office, or until the Board appoints
another person to that office, whichever first happens. This is to ensure an
orderly transition to the new arrangements. It may take some time for the Board
to make a decision regarding the Chief Executive Officer appointment.
This item substitutes the reference to the Authority in subsection 52B(2)
with a reference to the Board. It means that the Chief Executive Officer of the
Authority is subject to the direction of the Board when administering the
Authority and controlling its operations.
This item adds a new subsection (3) to section 52B. The new subsection
lists matters that the Board cannot delegate to the Chief Executive Officer.
These items amend sections 52D, 52E and 52F respectively to refer to the
Board and not to the Minister. This is because the new Board will be responsible
for determining the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer (in the absence
of a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal), as well as any other terms and
conditions of that office. It will also accept any resignation by the Chief
Executive Officer.
This item is a transitional provision. It carries over the terms and
conditions of the current CEO for the CEO of FSANZ, until the Board makes a new
determination in respect of these matters.
This item substitutes the reference to the Minister in section 52G with a
reference to the Board. The Board, and not the Minister, is to appoint any
acting Chief Executive Officer of the Board.
This item is a transitional provision. It ensures that if someone is
acting as Chief Executive Officer of ANZFA during a vacancy immediately before
the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill, that person will continue
as acting Chief Executive Officer of FSANZ for six months, or until the Board
terminates that person’s appointment, or the Board appoints that person or
another person to the office of Chief Executive Officer, whichever first
happens. This is to ensure an orderly transition to the new
arrangements.
This item is also a transitional provision. It makes parallel
arrangements to those referred to in item 155 for persons acting as CEO during
the absence of the CEO, or because for any reason, the CEO is unable to perform
the duties of this office. This is to ensure an orderly transition to the new
arrangements.
These items substitute the references to “an inquiry” in
section 61 and 62(1) with a reference to a final assessment (see discussion at
Item 40).
This item substitutes the reference to a “member of the
Authority” in subsection 62(2) with a reference to a “member of the
Board” (see discussion at item 116).
This item amends subparagraph 63(1)(a)(ii) to provide that a decision by
the Authority to reject an application for a standard to be developed urgently
is a decision that is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
This item substitutes the reference to the New Zealand Minister in
section 65A(1) with a reference to the New Zealand lead Minister on the Council.
This means that the New Zealand lead Minister on the Council is the minister who
is to agree to the fees the Authority may charge for services provided to New
Zealand.
This item repeals subsection 65A(2). The definition of New Zealand
Minister is no longer necessary.
This item is a transitional provision. It ensures the continuation of the
latest agreement made under section 65A in relation to the fees for services
provided to New Zealand, until a new agreement is agreed to by the Authority and
the New Zealand lead Minister on the Council.
This item substitutes the reference to “adoption” in
paragraph 66(9)(a) with a reference to “coming into effect”. This is
because under the new regulatory arrangements standards will no longer be
adopted by a Ministerial Council.
This item repeals section 67. It substitutes a new section 67 that lists
the matters that the Board cannot delegate to a member of the Board or to a
member of the staff of the Authority. The amendment ensures that all the
important decisions that the Act provides must be made by the Authority (for
example, to approve standards) are to be made by the Board itself. If the Board
decides to delegate any of its remaining delegable powers to an Authority staff
member, it can only delegate it to a person who is performing the duties of an
Executive Level 2 position, or a more senior position.
These item amends section 68 to provide that an action or proceeding may
not be taken against a member of the Board, rather than of the Authority, in
relation to the performance of its functions.
This item amends subsection 68(2) to take account of the new arrangements
whereby standards will no longer be adopted by a Ministerial Council, but
instead will be approved by the Authority.
This item is a transitional provision. It ensures that members of FSANZ
are still exempt from suit after the new arrangements commence.
This item changes the reference to a particular section to refer to the
new, equivalent section.
This item amends paragraph 69(e) to reflect the new arrangements whereby
recommendations will not be made to the Council, but instead the Authority will
notify the Council of decisions it makes under section 18 in relation to the
approval of standards or variations.
This item includes a number of new matters about which particulars must
be included in the Annual Report, including policy guidelines formulated by the
Council and notified to the Authority. Also to be included is information
regarding the numbers of reviews requested by the Council, and the numbers of
occasions when a standard or variation was revoked or amended by the Council.
Additional matters that are specified in the regulations may also be included.
This will enable additional matters to be included as necessary, to take account
of the new regulatory arrangements.
These items are transitional provisions. They make it clear that the new
Board is responsible for completing the Annual Report of ANZFA if it is not
completed by ANZFA before the commencement of the new arrangements.
This item is a transitional provision. It deals with how FSANZ is to deal
with the situation where ANZFA has made a recommendation to the Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) in relation to a standard or variation,
but ANZFSC has not yet made a decision in relation to that recommendation before
FSANZ commences operation.
Such standards or variations are to be dealt
with as if the Authority had approved the draft, or approved it with any
amendments it had recommended the Council make to it, and had notified the
Council that it had approved the draft, or draft as amended. The Council may
then either notify the Authority that it does not intend to request that the
approved draft be reviewed, or request that the Authority review the draft, or
reject the draft, in accordance with the usual Council review procedures set out
in the new Act.
If 60 days pass after Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill
commences, and the Council has does none of these things, the Authority is to
publish the standard or variation in accordance with the usual publication
requirements. Under those requirements, it will commence on the date specified
in the gazettal notice.
FSANZ is to provide a list of these outstanding
draft standards or variations for the Council as soon as item 174 commences so
that the Council will be made aware of these transitional arrangements.
This item is a transitional provision. It deals with applications pending
immediately before Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill commences. The transitional
arrangements for these applications are “start over” arrangements.
However, the Authority will be able to omit to redo those stages in the
standards development process that have already been done by ANZFA, provided it
reviews them having regard to any new submissions it receives and any new policy
guidelines made by the Ministerial Council for the purposes of section
10(2)(e).
This transitional arrangements are for “live”
applications, that is, applications received by ANZFA that have not been
withdrawn, and if in relation to which a draft has been prepared, a
recommendation relating to that draft has not been made to ANZFSC.
Such
applications will lapse at the time Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill commences,
and the Authority is not to action them except in accordance with item 175. This
means that even if, for example, the application was at the inquiry stage, it is
to be dealt with as “fresh application” in accordance with item 175
as if it had just been received. However, item 175 makes provision for the new
Authority to still have regard to all submissions that had been made in relation
to the application under the current Act, and provides the applicant with an
opportunity to give the Authority additional information to support the
application. The additional time allowed for the applicant to provide such
information (28 days) will not be included in the time period for processing of
the application.
The normal timeframe of 12 months for the processing of
an application from the receipt of the application to the time of making a
recommendation to Council will be extended a further three months for such
“fresh applications”. This additional time applies whether or not
the applicant has requested the Authority to defer making a decision whether or
not to accept the application to enable the applicant to provide more
information.
Notices seeking submissions at the draft and final
assessment stages for the processing of “fresh applications” will
explain that the Authority will have regard to submissions previously received
by ANZFA.
This item also sets out what is to happen in relation to
charges paid for services that have already been paid by applicants under the
Act as in force before the commencement of this item. If the charge was in
relation to a service that has already been provided, the applicant will be
deemed to have paid the Authority the charge for the corresponding service in
relation to the fresh application. If the service has not already been provided,
the Authority is to refund the amount paid unless the applicant elects to treat
the payment as fully discharging the applicant’s liability to pay the
Authority the charge fixed for the corresponding service in relation to the
fresh application.
This item is a transitional provision. It parallels item 175 except that
it deals with proposals.
This item enables regulations to be made for matters of a transitional
nature relating to any of the amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 1.
This item makes a technical correction to subsection 7(2) to remedy an
incorrect reference made by the last amending Bill. The reference to paragraph
(1)(n) in that paragraph will now correctly refer to “paragraph
(1)(o).”
This item makes a technical correction by adding at the end of section 3
an explanation of what is meant by an “amendment” of the standards
in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, and clarifies that a
“variation of a food regulatory measure” includes, and always has
included, the revocation of a food regulatory measure.
This item substitutes the correct reference in paragraph 12B(2)(b) to the
section under which a draft assessment is made.
These items make five minor technical corrections to remedy some minor
drafting errors.
This item inserts the correct reference to the date of the Public Service
Act (1999) in subsection 2(4) of that amending Bill.
This item substitutes the reference in subsection 7(2) of the
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994 to the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority Act 1991 with a reference to the new name of that Act, the Food
Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (see item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule
1).
This item repeals paragraph 138(5)(b) of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and
substitutes a new paragraph that refers to the new name of the Act, the Food
Standards Australia New Zealand 1991(see item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule
1).
This item substitutes the definition of “Australia New Zealand Food
Standards Code” in subsection 3(1) of the Imported Food Control Act 1992
with a new definition that provides that it has the same meaning as in the Food
Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. Item 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 amends
the definition of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code in that Act.
This amendment will ensure that the Imported Food Control Act 1992 picks up that
change.
This item substitutes a new subparagraph 3(3)(a)(i) in the Imported Food
Control Act 1992 so that it refers to standards made under the new food
regulatory reforms as well as those adopted by the Australia New Zealand Food
Standards Council.
This item makes a minor amendment to subparagraph 3(3)(a)(ii) of the
Imported Food Control Act 1991 to omit an unnecessary reference.
This item amends the definition of “food additive” in
subsection 7(1) of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act
1989 to update the current reference to the Food Standards Code so that it
refers to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
This item substitutes the reference to the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority Act 1991 in the definition of “food additive” in
subsection 7(1) of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act
1989 with a reference to the new name of the Act, the Food Standards Australia
New Zealand Act 1991 (see item 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1).
This item substitutes the reference to the Australia New Zealand Food
Authority Act 1991 in the definition of “therapeutic goods” in
subsection 3(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 with a reference to the new
name of the Act, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (see item 2
of Part 1 of Schedule 1).