Thursday, 2 April 2026

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:00): Of all the people in this chamber and possibly the other one, I am probably one of the most familiar with the two industries that are primarily contained within this bill: first of all the Dairy Act 2000 that this Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026 seeks to amend, in terms of the fact that I grew up in a dairy farm, and then the second and very important part of that is PrimeSafe. PrimeSafe covers a range of food entities, and we will explore those. But my grandfather, before he became an engineer, was a fourth-generation butcher, so it is something that is very dear to my heart – both the dairy industry and that contained within PrimeSafe.

When we think about the dairy industry from many years ago, it is the evolution of refrigeration that has transformed, as it has for many, our dairy industry. Many years ago on farms there was no thing called refrigeration. There were coolstores. There were thick walls. But small farms produced milk, separated the cream from the whey, fed the cream to pigs that were on farm and then sent off in the back of a truck to the local butter factory the cream to be made into butter. Then we had the evolution of milk vats and milk tankers, which were refrigerated, which facilitated and enabled further transportation of the incredibly valuable product of milk, which then was able to be taken to larger centres and larger processing plants. In my home area Murray Goulburn and Bonlac were some of the examples. Then we had pasteurisation and homogenisation, again creating a better framework for safety of that food, for durability of that food and to be able to keep it for longer and longer, which then provided the capacity for people not to have the house cow or to let milk sit for a long time but to use it in a variety of methods. Indeed the whole evolution of UHT and long-life milk has been so important for the health, the viability and the wellbeing of Victorians, of Australians and internationally. Part of the importance of this bill is around keeping international trade and keeping our extremely high quality food and produce being recognised right across the world and creating that gross domestic product for our state.

If we look, similarly, at meat production, my grandfather at Trafalgar actually – there was a very small abattoir – killed the steer, brought it into town, put it into a lead-lined coolstore and then processed it, and out it went fresh. He used to deliver meat around Trafalgar on the back of a horse-drawn carriage. This was back a long time ago now, and he used to run beside the carriage and then run in to keep fit. We are very glad for the fact that it has evolved over time. But there is still the incredible importance of delivering quality produce, processing it to an incredibly high standard, meeting those obligations and having real-life industry-led support for regulation and oversight.

We will not be opposing this bill, but we certainly will be moving a number of amendments. I can say I am not going to hurry through those amendments, because I believe that this is a very important bill and it warrants that fine discussion and consideration in committee of the whole. We want to target some amendments. We want to ensure that industry has confidence, has export integrity and has consumer transparency. This is not about blocking the reform, but it is about getting it right.

Key omissions in the legislation that we see here are in relation to representation of industry on the board of the new Safe Food Victoria, prescribing consultative committees by key commodity groups, protecting fees and ensuring that the fees that are already in existence now in the separate entities can be transferred over and used by the specific commodity groups within this new framework, regulatory assets for each commodity group and defining a statutory review. Further, and this is often an interesting one, there are some tremendous plant-based protein alternatives out there – very important – and also milk and plant-based juice or nut juice. There are a variety of ways we could say that – nut beverages. We seek amendments here to make sure that there is mandatory disclosure of plant-based products, prohibition of misleading descriptors to stop that from happening, and consumer transparency. We want to ensure that people have the choice and know how this looks.

As I have said, farming right across Victoria is so very important. Dairy farmers are among Victoria’s largest export contributors. They produce 63 per cent of Australia’s milk. Think of that: 63 per cent of Australia’s milk comes from Victoria. It is one of Victoria’s most important exports. In the entire region, but particularly in Gippsland – I can be parochial – across the sector this represent families that get up before dawn, work long hours, are self-employed, are small business operators and operate under incredibly high standards of animal husbandry and animal welfare, and I want to commend so many of them.

I will digress slightly in relation to the quality, noting that my father 30-plus years ago was a dairy farmer. There is a consideration of having a low cell count. What that means is that you run a very clean dairy, you have very healthy cows and you have healthy udders, but to be in the top 10 per cent of the region for that cell count says to me – and I am very proud of it – that he was an excellent farmer and had very high welfare standards for his healthy cows overall to be in that category. Again, I say that because it is very important that Dairy Food Safety Victoria, as the dairy-only regulator, has had a very strong engagement with the sector and a proven track record. I want to put on record that in no way should this change by the government be seen to suggest that Dairy Food Safety Victoria was not doing its job. There was nothing wrong with Dairy Food Safety Victoria, and we want to carry over some of those mechanisms and some of that oversight and industry-led input and committee work as well into this new bill. In terms of PrimeSafe, it regulates meat, poultry and seafood, with deep sector expertise. These are not broken institutions, these are respected here and internationally, and I commend them for the work that they have done. And they have evolved. Certainly they have evolved over time, as I said, with technology and experience. We do not want to lose that good knowledge and that good process.

The bill establishes Safe Food Victoria and it abolishes Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe. The bill talks about a legislative umbrella. It also amends a number of other acts that need to be amended with the creation of Safe Food Victoria: the Dairy Act, the Food Act 1984, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Seafood Safety Act 2003 and others as a consequence. In fact a lot of it is just tidying up as a result of this new entity.

The government will say – and it is; it was in the Silver review, it is part of the Silver review – that it is about consolidating. In terms of the Silver review, it says:

Consolidation will reduce duplication, improve coordination, and streamline regulatory interactions for food businesses, while strengthening oversight across the sector. The reform aligns with the phased consolidation outlined in the Economic Growth Statement, with consultation underway.

If that all becomes true, then that is the maximum outcome that we can expect.

However, we certainly are concerned, and when I say ‘we’, it is the Liberals and Nationals, and my good colleague the Shadow Minister for Agriculture Emma Kealy has done a power of work on this, and we thank her for that. She has consulted widely with the sector, and there are still many concerns that they have.

As I said, the current system has had a strong reputation across the whole sector. What I would like to do is just outline some of the concerns that we will be fixing and amending in our various amendments. There is no guarantee that the new regulatory board will include representation and expertise from dairy, meat processing, agriculture or regional food production. Without mandated expertise the board risks becoming dominated by generalists, and that is what much of the feedback from the sector has said. The agricultural sector have said that they are concerned about generalist appointees rather than people with direct industry knowledge, so we want to actually embed that in the legislation. These committees that Safe Food Victoria is going to establish have not had that expertise defined in legislation.

We also want to move some amendments in relation to fees. Dairy Food Safety Victoria operates on a cost-recovery, industry-funded model, and it has built up reserves funded by dairy producers. This has been in the long term. We want to make sure that those funds are transformed and transferred over to remain, as it were, hypothecated for the dairy industry. This is a really important thing. We do not want to see, which has been the case in the government sector, and we have seen it in other areas – not in these particular industries by any stretch but in other areas – something go to consolidated revenue and be lost to the improvements and the oversight and the quality of food safety from that particular area.

The other thing that is interesting and important is that this legislation proposes additional foods, such as cell-cultivated meat, that could be regulated in the future by Safe Food Victoria. We are now well into a new millennium and new technology, and whilst it sends, philosophically, a shiver through my spine – the fact that we are going to have cell-cultivated meat, that you can grow your steak there in the lab and it can taste reasonable or otherwise; I am quite concerned about that, coming off the farm and having fresh lamb, fresh pork and fresh beef – I also understand that this world is getting more and more populated, and we need to ensure that we can nutritionally feed the population. Where I sit is that while it would be something that I would not particularly enjoy or adhere to, I understand that there is a developmental potential for that.

The government has stated also, in terms of the review fees, that they will review the fees. But I just want to put on record our concerns should they steal the fees that exist now that have been obtained by the various entities that are used but also the future fees that are used specifically for that development and for that food safety.

In terms of export risks, and I have said it in here, some of the conversations and communications around the changeover are that the dairy industry and the meat industry very much rely on international markets. They have export partners which are stable and credible, so what they are concerned about with the changeover is that this credibility may drop in terms of standards. They do not want to see that happen, so I have to put on record our concern around that.

In terms of the centralised bureaucracy, this is what we see often, but whether or not this will actually deliver what the Silver review has suggested that it might, we are concerned about a larger bureaucracy that is more distant from the industry and slower to respond to specific issues, and of course there are a lot of issues out there.

Biosecurity is an incredibly important issue that we have raised in the in the past in this Parliament where there has been threat of internationally borne diseases coming into the country and the need for high regulation. I understand a lot of that is in the federal sphere, but every state has its own requirement and responsibility to protect our biosecurity across the board.

There are some other factors that I will go through when I am actually doing consideration of the amendments, and I thought I would try and do that in this time rather than going into committee of the whole and doing them piecemeal. That provides us with some continuity for discussion here. As I said, the dairy industry is concerned about the changes. They are concerned that there is no guaranteed industry representation on the new board, and we will fix that with our amendments. They are concerned that consultation is not embedded in the legislation. We also hear from the Australian Meat Industry Council that risks to exports exist. They have said these commitments are fundamental to maintaining industry confidence, protecting sector-specific expertise and delivering on the government’s stated objectives.

In relation to emerging food products and labelling, as new products like cell-cultivated meat enter the market we certainly must ensure that they are properly regulated and that they contribute to the cost of that regulation. Whereas there has been in the past a fee structure from the primary producers providing that to the regulators, that is not necessarily there in this new bill, so we need to ensure that they will be properly regulated, that these new and emerging products – cell-cultivated meat, as it is called – contribute to the cost of that regulation and that the consumer is not misled or unclear in terms of the labelling. If it says meat, it should be meat, and I will go into that very clearly in the conversation around our amendments.

As I said, we are not opposing the reform. There could be opportunity for improved and streamlined regulation, certainly in this situation where we have got a net debt slated, in terms of the forward estimates for 2028–29, for just shy of $200 billion and Victorians are suffering just about $1 million per hour in interest repayments. We understand the need to streamline and make efficiencies where possible, but we will be moving amendments to ensure that industry representation is on the board, to establish mandatory consultative committees, to protect industry-raised funds and to introduce a statutory review. This is a new system, this is a new entity and we need to look into that and make sure that it is achieving its objectives to strengthen protections around food labelling and to ensure new food industries pay their fair share in terms of regulation.

I just want to put on record, as I said, some of our amendments, which will hopefully streamline the process in committee of the whole. But before I do, I just want to mention one particular industry group called Cattle Australia:

Lab-grown proteins must be held to the same food safety, environmental and labelling standards as real products like beef …

said Cattle Australia’s chief executive officer Dr Chris Parker, and I thank them:

The processes and ingredients used to produce these products are often ‘commercial in confidence’ …

They are secret spy new ingredients.

A member interjected.

Melina BATH: Well, they are commercial in confidence, so they could be anything. We need to make sure, for human consumption, for markets, for people and for families who might want to and like to use these, that they are held to the same food safety, environmental and labelling standards as real meat.

In relation to the amendments, let me go through them so that we are across them. We want to amend the Food Act 1984 in terms of regulating the labelling and use of food terms. We do not want to see the use of ‘milk’ where it is not milk – milk has a definition – and it is not a product of dairy. We want to prevent misleading terms of meat descriptors such as bacon, steak and mince. If you go into any good supermarket or any large supermarket these days, even in the local IGA, you will see ‘bacon-like’ ingredients. They have a market and they deserve to be in that market, but there needs to be a clear differentiation between plant-based foods and cell-cultivated meat. Consumers deserve to see that clarity, and that is what our first amendment does.

On clause 4, on a non-regression and industry support guarantee, we want to ensure that the food safety standards do not go backwards. Surely that must be the objective of any good government – that if you are changing the regulator, changing how it operates, it is held at the same standards. We will be moving an amendment to be able to ensure that the industry does not go backwards – the food production does not go back backwards and the quality does not go backwards. It is very important to make sure that nothing is weakened with this bill.

In terms of clause 14, our amendments 4 and 5 look at mandatory industry and regional representation. We are quite concerned that with the new board there is not a specified requirement for a dairy expert, a meat expert, a seafood expert and experts on horticulture and eggs. We want to ensure that there is that representation. We also want to ensure – and this is a very, very big focus particularly of the Nationals but of the Liberals and Nationals – that at least one of those members lives in regional Victoria. There will be advocacy, there will be understanding and there will be decisions made. We often see that decisions are made by people who are in Melbourne and who do not have an understanding of regional Victoria and experience in regional food production, so that is another of the amendments.

In terms of consultation, we want to see far more rigour around the consultation process. Our amendments 6 to 8 to clause 25 would enable real industry consultation. We want to ensure that there are dedicated industry committees and that the majority are industry-led, industry-experienced members, and that there is a mandatory referral to correct the sector. It needs to be not just one size fits all and homogenous; we need that specific understanding. We need to ensure that this particular amendment gets up, because it would support a lot of the industry concerned throughout the process.

In terms of our amendment to clause 35, amendment 9, we are looking at mandatory performance transparency. What does it do? It adds reporting. This is about the regulations. We have regulations for an important mechanism to make sure that there are high standards, and if those high standards are not being met, then there needs to be reporting on the types of inspections, the types of enforcement directions, the incidents, health trends that we see and fees, because we then get the full transparency that needs to occur. It would also enable Parliament to assess the effectiveness and to support the understanding around the regulatory burden, and it would also support future scrutiny, potentially even in PAEC.

In terms of financial reform, our amendments 10 to 13 are to clauses 36 to 38. What this particular amendment does is create a general fund account. They were in separate accounts, PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria; it is amalgamating all those funds to a general fund account. What we specifically want to do is make sure that funds that were in the dairy section are retained in the dairy and food innovation account, that there is a Food Act account, that there is a meat industry account, that there is a seafood safety account and then there is a general account. This ring fences revenue and spending and ensures those fees stay within each sector. This stops this cross-subsidy and ensures that those people who are doing the work, who are producing our food and who are creating employment, economic value and healthy plates for our tables, still have that potential industry research and support in terms of what needs to happen in terms of the regulation.

That is answering some of the other questions from our concerned industry sector. Amendment 14 looks at an independent three-year review. Again, it must assess cost, safety outcomes and export impacts. That is also a very important sector. It forces accountability in terms of this major structural reform, and it provides that oversight. It gives government and the minister at the time important oversight. In terms of our amendments 15 to 18, these look at transition funding for integrity. They redirect the legacy funds, as I have spoken about, into the correct industry accounts, they ensure seafood funding is separated properly and they prevent that distortion over the transition. We do not want to see industry short-changed in this transition.

The other one that we are looking at is clause 82. Our amendment 19 looks to declared food and lab-grown meat. It explicitly includes cell-cultivated protein as a declared food. I thank Emma Kealy for doing this work. We want to ensure that that is a declared food. It clarifies that ‘declared food’ includes novel foods permitted under the Australian and New Zealand food safety standards. It looks at specifically including cell-cultivated protein – meat. I will say ‘meat’ for the last time on that one, but cell-cultivated protein. It introduces safeguards for new food classes. There are some key protections in terms of the cell-cultivated protein. We really want to make sure that the consumer has transparency. We want to ensure that biosecurity and safety oversight are embedded in this legislation. We want to make sure that there is that clarity and understanding. It is forward planning for new developments. It balances innovation, consumer protection and agricultural interests, and I think that is warranted.

Lastly, in terms of ministerial powers, we have a couple of amendments in relation to parliamentary oversight. The minister can only regulate new foods if they are new technologies or non-traditional. This stops the unchecked expansion of regulation.

Finally, the truth. The new clause proposed by our amendment 22 looks at new truth in labelling. It protects terms like ‘cheese’, ‘milk’, ‘meat’ and ‘beef’ and requires clear labelling for plant-based products and cell-cultivated protein. This is important. It states that it must be of equal size to the stated term that the company has decided to use. If it is not milk, you should not be are calling it milk. Milk is from a lactating mammal, and we just want that transparency. It is about honesty for consumers. It is about fairness for farmers and no more marketing tricks. It must say what it is and say what it does.

I ask the house to consider these amendments to restore balance to a centralised system, to ensure that there is absolute respect for those that produce our food, that it retains the quality and the industry oversight and that these amendments pass. I will circulate those amendments now.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (16:30): I too rise to speak on the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026. From the outset I will say that I will not be opposing this legislation. It is interesting for me to follow the Nationals member and her commentary, which I will be getting into, as well as the comments of her colleague in the lower house in the debate there. It is very, very interesting to hear commentary from the Nationals about truth in labelling and declaring what is in products, because I think most people in this place would not be eating animal products if they knew the horrific practices that went on in our slaughterhouses and abattoirs across this country.

I want to start with something really important about this legislation – something that we are very, very supportive of – and that is the progress of a cultivated meat industry right here in Victoria. That is something that is incredibly important because it is an emerging space. It is a new space. It is a space that other countries have had huge uptake in. It is not only better for animals and the environment but also creates jobs, which we are missing out on right here in Victoria. This legislation will enable a specialised licence that will support and promote food innovation. Something that I am really excited for is the ability for cultivated meats to be given a chance to thrive here in the Victorian market, because currently that is not happening.

Cultivated meat is real animal meat. No matter what the Nationals will tell you, there are no hidden ingredients in it. Anything that is commercial in confidence is so because the product cannot be sold in Victoria at the moment, so all of the companies are keeping their ingredients secret. This bill will be the pathway for them to be able to actually sell it here in our state. It is produced by simply taking the cell of an animal and culturing it in a controlled environment. This is so important because it eliminates the need to raise and slaughter animals. I do not just say that from an animal protection perspective, I say it from a land use perspective and I say it from an environmental perspective. The most thrilling and exciting thing about cultivated meat is it only requires a scraped cell from one single animal once in its lifetime. That cell can be replicated and used over and over again, and the animal does not even have to die for it to happen. Why anyone would be opposed to this is absolutely beyond me. How it works is you take a sample of stem cells, feed them nutrients in bioreactors and then differentiate them into muscle and fat tissue, which is what meat is.

Currently, local councils are regulators of cultivated meats, but the reality is that council environmental health officers may not have the appropriate expertise to adequately regulate these food products, and that causes an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. Without the change in this bill, all 79 councils would need to develop expertise in this area of food technology, and that is the current real barrier for innovation here in Victoria. What this new body will do is centralise the functions of other regulators by creating Safe Food Victoria, which is essentially a one-stop shop that will make it easier to obtain a relevant food safety licence. This legislation will also establish the Safe Food Victoria board. I note the Nationals are seeking that certain industries be represented on the board, and they are also seeking the establishment of specific animal agribusiness advisory committees – as if that industry does not have enough influence already. But it seems only right – in fact it should be the most important thing to happen – if that is going to happen, that there is also someone on the board who is committed to being a voice for the animals.

This is a board that will be making decisions about animals, and in the absence of them being able to speak for themselves, there should be someone who is able to speak for them. That is why I intend to move an amendment that requires one of the board positions to be filled by an animal welfare advocate, and I ask that that amendment be circulated now.

Right now Victoria is a more complicated jurisdiction to establish a food business in. That is why cultivated meat has not really taken off yet like it has in other countries around the world where the industry is worth an enormous amount of money. There are new jobs in it, it is innovation, it is emerging industries, it is new technology, and Victoria right now is missing out on that because of the resistance. I know that many in the vegan community and the animal protection community are thrilled at the prospect of having this here in Victoria. But more importantly it is an opportunity that is most exciting for people who do eat meat but want to make a more ethical choice that does not result in the killing of animals.

It is incredibly important for people to understand why this is such a win-win situation. Cultivated meats are grown from a small sample of animal cells, which removes the need to raise and slaughter whole animals, as I have said. Unlike traditional meat, it requires no harm whatsoever. A single biopsy can produce large quantities of meat, which essentially means the horrors of factory farming, confinement and slaughter are just not required. No matter what the Nationals tell you, this is the same product that is being produced right now from harmful practices here in Victoria. We just do not need to do it, so I do not know why we would not take that up. It is better for the environment because less land is required for animal agriculture, as the need to provide space for grazing animals and feed crops is significantly reduced.

In saying this, I want to make a comment again on the Nationals member and her commentary before in relation to supporting the meat industry here. The majority of our meat is exported overseas; it is not consumed here. We are using an incredible amount of land, a huge amount of land, to export meat overseas. Again, the cultivated meat industry does not require us to do that, and we could continue to still export that meat. In fact without the need to raise livestock for dairy and meat, we would reduce global agricultural land use by 75 per cent. Because cultivated meat is grown in a controlled environment, there is also lower risk of contamination and no need for the routine antibiotics that are commonly used in factory farm settings. This will also result in fewer viral epidemics, less threats to food security and benefit our health and animal welfare. It has the exact same taste, texture and flavour as meat, yet despite all of the overwhelming positives, there will still be people who continue to turn their nose up at this and want to keep the status quo – the status quo being, clearly, the horrors of animal agriculture.

This is probably a nice segue into my next point, and that is to mention some of the comments made by the member for Lowan in the other place. I note that there are a number of amendments now in relation to her comments. The member referred to cultivated meat as a ‘direct competitor’ and said:

If lab-grown meats are going to be included under this legislation and regulated by Safe Food Victoria, a fee or levy needs to be introduced as soon as possible to ensure they effectively do not get a free ride.

If we want to talk about getting a free ride, let us talk about animal agriculture here in Victoria and across Australia, because right now one of the largest and most environmentally intensive industries in this country is operating without the same level of accountability expected of other industries. We set climate targets across sectors like mining and forestry, yet animal agriculture, despite its significant contribution to emissions – in fact it is one of the biggest climate culprits in this country and around the world – largely escapes this level of scrutiny.

They get off scot-free. There is no binding requirement for the sector to meet the same standards as others to reduce their impact, despite them often contributing more. And often they are even propped up, despite what they are doing. We have all seen the drone shots of feedlots stretching beyond what the eye can see. With hunger on the rise globally, we need to start reconsidering our food-based systems. I know people probably expect me to say that, but it is really important that we all understand that, no matter how we feel about animal welfare, because if we do not, we are going to be forced to act. Innovation in the meat industry is urgently needed to address this, as there is no current mainstream method of production that is going to satisfy the growing demand for meat and our growing population. Right now, estimates show that global meat demand is projected to double by 2050 compared to 2000 levels. This solution, as I have said, is here, and it is included in this bill, and we need to make it more accessible.

The member for Lowan also went on to say that the consumer must be able to make an informed choice and then delved into the Nationals’ favourite topic – and I note that the member in here also mentioned it – nut milks, or nut juice as they often say. She said:

But we also need to ensure that our kids understand and that the community understands that almond milk is not really milk, it is juice. It is a beverage. It is a tea, maybe. It is certainly not milk.

She continued:

I know many people, including even National Party MPs, who enjoy soy milk or an almond latte, but we need to call it as it is. We need to be up-front around it. We need to ensure that milk is milk – it is a lactated secretion from a mammal – and it is protected in that way.

First of all, I would like to thank the member for Lowan for acknowledging what many adults that were weaned from their own mother’s breastmilk still do not know: the fact that cows make milk not because they are cows, cows make milk because they are mothers, which often blows people’s minds. It might not be shocking to the Nationals, but many people do not realise that cows are producing milk because they are kept in a constant cycle of pregnancy, their babies are taken away from them, they are killed and then the milk is given to humans. And when they are kept in that lifetime of constant pregnancy and someone else is taking their babies’ milk, well, I am sure you can guess how it ends up. It often starts with a truck, and sometimes it ends with a sledgehammer.

But if the member has an issue with calling almond milk ‘milk’, or if the Nationals have an issue with that, I would like to know: do they have the same view about peanut butter, about coconut milk, about eggplant? People are not stupid. They are aware of what is in a plant-based milk product. This is a targeted and intentional attack from the animal agriculture industry, who are threatened by the growing demand and the rise in plant-based eating.

But why stop at the labelling of plant-based foods? Why wouldn’t we call ham ‘pig thigh’? Or beef ‘cow flesh’? Instead of wings, why wouldn’t we say ‘chicken shoulder joint’? That is in fact what those products are. Or hot dogs – what is actually in them as well? I am sure people are smart enough to know they are in fact not dogs. So if anyone needs to be up-front and honest about labelling, it is the animal agriculture industry, and I would welcome those changes if we are going to talk about truth in labelling.

Going back to cultivated meat, I have actually had cultivated meat. I took our fine Deputy Premier Mr Carroll, when he was Minister for Industry and Innovation, along with Ms Watt in this place, to try cultivated meat with one of our brilliant start-ups here in Victoria, who are desperate to get out there on the market. I think it is safe to say that they loved it. They were very impressed, knowing that they were eating the very product that many people enjoy. I do not think the Deputy Premier actually eats meat himself, but he had tried pork at one point in his lifetime, and he said it tasted exactly as he remembered it. It tasted exactly as they remembered it because it is exactly that product. I cannot stress that enough: cultivated meat is meat without the harm. It has the same texture, taste and feel but without the cruelty and the cost to our planet and our future. And this is really important, because the reality is that there are people who will never give up consuming meat, and now that cultivated meat exists, they do not have to. We just need to get it out there on the market. The member then added that she seeks to move amendments to include mandatory plant-based product disclosures and cultivated meat disclosures as well as an amendment to ensure consumer transparency requirements, saying:

We need to ensure that people understand when meat is meat and when it is not.

What the member again fails to understand, which I keep driving home here, is that cultivated meat is real meat. It is meat, and in the same way, if someone has an allergy to conventional meat or fish that is produced in the cruel way, they will almost certainly have an allergy to the cultivated meat product being made from the very animal itself. That is because the body will recognise these products as meat and fish, because again, they are biologically identical.

But if we are going to have a chat about the differences between conventional meat and cultivated meat, then allow me to explain the cruel and outdated practices that the former requires. Conventional meat involves artificial insemination, where pigs and other animals have their semen collected and inserted into the cervix of the female animal via a catheter. Bodily mutilations are also incredibly common in animal agribusiness. In fact they are standard practice, and they are conducted without pain relief, as would be required for our companion animals. This can include disbudding in calves and kid goats, involving a hot iron applied directly to the skull to destroy the developing horn tissue. Live lamb cutting, or mulesing, is when a lamb’s tail is hacked off with a hot knife, often without prior pain relief as well. In fact in Victoria it is only legally required to provide pain relief after the mutilation, and advocates and vets have described this as having your arm surgically removed and then being given a Panadol. That is their assessment of the requirements for pain relief here in Victoria and the standard practices that go on here.

Chick maceration I have spoken about before, which involves day-old male chicks being killed using a high-speed grinder. Many people often contact me wanting to know a way to avoid this, saying, ‘Can I buy free-range? Can I buy organic?’ And the answer is: grinding male chicks on their first day of life is standard practice in every form of egg-laying system here in Victoria, because 50 per cent of eggs that are hatched in hatcheries will be the sex that cannot lay eggs, and therefore they are a waste product to the industry. The solution to that is to be thrown into a high-speed blender and turned into mince; that is happening here in Victoria at multiple locations. What is perhaps most confronting and what is most concerning is the technology exists to not do this. It is being implemented around the world, and even the industry here supports bringing in the innovation to avoid chick shredding. But the government has not invested in it yet to allow them to do that.

These do not even touch the surface, these standard practices, of what happens after farmed animals reach maturity. I will spare you all the details of what happens inside crowded cages, in factory farms, sheds and feedlots and in overheated transport trucks, which again are basically unregulated. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard of ordinary members of the public – people who eat meat, who have not engaged or seen up close our farming systems until they hit a regional road – seeing a truck on the way to a slaughterhouse in blistering heat, seeing how much those animals were suffering and knowing that there was nothing to stop trucks travelling on those days.

Then of course we have the gassing of pigs, which is the most common way that pigs are made unconscious, if you can call it that, before slaughter here in Victoria. I am sure many of us have seen the confronting and horrific scenes of these poor animals, which have intelligence equal to that of a four-year-old child. They are smarter than our dogs. They are some of the smartest animals on the planet, and here we lower them into gassing cells where they thrash around – it has been described by vets as like being burnt from the inside out. That is the way that we stun them before slaughter here in Victoria. And of course this is all done because, as I said previously, the demand for meat is growing so rapidly that the industry is finding ways to process or kill as many animals as quickly as possible.

These standard practices that I talk about are not common knowledge for meat consumers. These practices are in fact purposely and deliberately hidden. They are buried beneath layers of strategic advertising, secrecy and ag gag legislation, which I will get to in a moment. But if we are going to talk about truth in labelling, if the Nationals are going to talk about truth in labelling, wanting to declare that a product is cultivated meat or plant-based, and they are so scared of these products that are great for the environment, that are great for animals, that are great for human health, then why aren’t we putting on packets in supermarkets that that pig was gassed or those eggs came from a place where they macerate day-old chicks? Why aren’t we saying that lamb had their backside cut off without pain relief when they are sold in the supermarket? If the Nationals want truth in labelling, if they want truth in labelling laws, then we should be telling Victorians, we should be telling Australians the things that we allow – that this government allows – the industry to do to these poor animals.

Time and time again we have seen activists uncover illegal or cruel practices behind factory walls. Again, this is another piece of legislation that the government suddenly had time to quickly do, that they announced very swiftly in response to the animal agribusinesses’ demands – and they still have not prioritised the animal welfare laws that they committed to – and that is to introduce ag gag legislation here in Victoria to make it even harder to uncover illegal or cruel practices happening behind these walls. So not only will they not tell Victorians what they are doing to these animals, they do not want anyone to expose it either. If they are so proud of this work that they are doing, or if they have nothing to hide, I do not understand why they have fought tooth and nail to implement these laws that essentially create a new set of laws only for animal activists. Trespass is already a crime in Victoria, but there is an even worse crime for a trespass when it comes to animal activism. That is to evade accountability, while those who expose the truth are being punished – they are facing jail, they are facing enormous fines. And then of course we have recently seen the case where a slaughterhouse in Victoria is taking its case all the way to the High Court, with the Farm Transparency Project fighting an injunction that was put on footage that they captured in a slaughterhouse here in Victoria. If they have nothing to hide, why are they fighting so hard and spending so much money to cover up what is legal and what is allowed here in Victoria?

It is probably a good time to note that this bill is coming through the Parliament when a parliamentary inquiry actually recommended that a number of those things I have just spoken about at least be displayed on the Victorian government’s and the Victorian department’s website. It would make my job a whole lot easier; people contact me all the time with animal cruelty complaints when they see factory farming, when they see maceration, when they see a livestock truck. I of course have to respond to them and say, ‘Thanks for your concern, thanks for caring about animals, but actually that is completely legal in Victoria.’ Not only is it legal, it is actually standard practice and it is encouraged and supported by the government. Then we see in labelling, marketing terms like ‘free-range’, ‘cage-free’, ‘barn-raised’. These are also deliberately used to hide the realities of modern animal agriculture, while in the case of cultivated meats – I have even heard the Nationals doing it today – they use ‘fake’ and ‘synthetic’ and ‘artificial’, and it is very, very scary. It is very, very scary –

Melina Bath: Who is gaslighting? You are gaslighting.

Georgie PURCELL: and it is intentionally pushed by the meat industry to generate fear and distrust among consumers. I will take up that interjection, because these words are being intentionally used to put people off these products. The member for Lowan, to her credit, did say that she loves veggie patties, which I was pleased to hear, but she did lose me when she said:

… you do not need to call it meat just to be able to sell it. It is disingenuous to do that. I do not understand why you would seek a product that tastes like chicken if it is not chicken. Eat chicken; it has not got preservatives in it.

That takes me back to the reason why everyone should be excited about cultivated meat.

But here, I want to address the way in which we often get asked ‘Why would you want to eat something like its animal-based counterpart when you could just eat the real thing?’ – which obviously this comment is referring to. That is missing an incredibly important point, and that is that people choose plant-based options not because they do not like the taste of meat. I did not stop eating meat because I did not like the taste of meat. I stopped eating meat because of the cruelty, the environmental impact and of course the health risks that are associated with eating animal products. The appeal of tasting cultivated pork was clear to me, knowing that people could enjoy the same taste without destructive consequences.

If the member is so concerned about preservatives in vegan meats – and preservatives are obviously a very, very common ingredient in many food products in the supermarket – I think it is probably important that we talk about what is in meat products. Antibiotics are regularly given to farmed animals to prevent disease, to control outbreaks and to treat sicknesses like infections and parasites. Their usage is so rampant in the industry that it is even impacting human tolerance. Again, this should concern every single one of us even if we are not concerned about animal welfare, because the World Health Organization calls the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture one of the biggest threats to global health that we face. It makes sense when you think about it, because thousands of animals are crammed in together in filthy conditions, and that is a perfect breeding ground for bacteria to thrive. Then of course there is abscess removal undertaken by meat workers, where they will cut out infections filled with pus if an animal comes through that is sick. Of course, talking about pus, that is an ingredient – if you can call it that – that is regularly found in dairy milk. In the US the Food and Drug Administration allows up to 750 million pus cells in every litre of milk. In Europe regulators allow 400 million pus cells per litre. But in Australia – I have to quote Mean Girls – the limit does not exist. The limit does not exist for pus cells here, and that means potentially that if an animal is sick or has mastitis or there is something wrong, we do not know about it, and there is no testing or standard to determine if that could be the case.

Lastly, if we are going to talk about products that can be found in meat products and things that are probably more scary than preservatives, the fact is that here in Australia a few years ago Coles brand milk was pulled off the shelf because it had, essentially, cow poo in it. But what is important to note is not the fact that it had cow poo in it; it had too much cow poo. It had beyond the allowable amount of cow poo that can be found in a bottle of milk. I share these things because – and of course everyone is free to make their own choice; I obviously have my very strong views – if we are going to make people afraid or make comments about ingredients in animal products such as preservatives, then I think there is actually a much more important issue that needs to be addressed, and that does not necessarily need to be from an animal welfare front. It needs to be done also from a human health front. As I said, we are actually lagging behind in comparison to other countries around the globe when it comes to sharing with consumers what they might be consuming when they pick an item up off the shelf.

In summarising, because I have spoken far longer than I expected to –

Michael Galea interjected.

Georgie PURCELL: It is a long speech, Mr Galea. I am very passionate about this. This bill has a very, very good thing in it. This bill will be the first step to allowing the sale of cultivated meat here in Australia, and everyone – every member and every party in this place – should consider that a good thing, because it is good for animals, it is good for the environment, it is good for human health, it creates jobs and it allows us to prepare for challenges which, if we do not address them now, we will be forced to face in the future. Of course the climate emergency is being driven partly by the animal agriculture industry, and if we do not have the tools in place to feed our state and to feed our nation, like cultivated meat allows us to, then we are going to be in some pretty serious trouble in a few decades. I look forward to discussing this further in committee of the whole, and in saying that, I commend the bill to the house.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:00): I am pleased to speak on the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026. Food safety is a critical issue for Victoria, especially in my own region of south-west Victoria. The south-west of Victoria produces a substantial proportion of Victoria’s beef, lamb, dairy and seafood and an increasing amount of cropped foods like canola.

If you look at the structure of the south-west economy, you can see that food is our reason for existing. For example, according to WestVic Dairy’s 2025 annual report, western Victoria’s dairy industry produces 22 per cent of the nation’s milk and 25 per cent of national dairy exports by volume. That is a quarter of national dairy exports coming from the south-west. It is not only dairy. Food and Fibre Great South Coast have calculated that the Great South Coast region alone accounts for almost a third – that is 29.5 per cent – of Victoria’s total beef production and more than a third, or 33 per cent, of sheep and meat production, with a gross value of around $1.4 billion per annum.

We also produce a substantial proportion of abalone and rock lobster, or crayfish. According to the Victorian Food and Fibre Export Performance Summary report, abalone is worth $25 million and rock lobster is worth $86 million in exports respectively. I have visited Southern Ocean Mariculture, the abalone farm near Port Fairy, a wonderful example of natural food production that relies on safe and accountable transportation of products to markets and ports. Together these products represent billions of dollars in exports and domestic sales. They are critical in ensuring Victorians have strong food security. It makes sense that the quality of our production, storage, transport and manufacturing systems ensures that food products are kept safe to consume. Confidence in our food products underpins all of that value. This bill will ensure that confidence is maintained into the future.

These changes will also help to reduce the complexity and fragmentation of food safety regulation. We know that regulatory complexity is not only a risk but also a direct input cost to production of our food. Simplifying regulation saves time and therefore money for food producers. The changes made in this bill are the fulfilment of a commitment in the 2024 Economic Growth Statement and also the Allan government’s commitment to halving the regulatory burden in the state of Victoria. These changes from the Silver review reflect that commitment.

The bill will implement the first stage of a two-stage reform program to consolidate food safety regulators in Victoria. Stage 1 will see the establishment of Safe Food Victoria. This new entity will replace PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria. It will also take over the food safety regulator functions of the Department of Health. This will create a single front door for food safety queries. Safe Food Victoria will hold a whole-of-supply-chain role in ensuring food is safe, with support from departments and local councils. It will be in place by mid-2026, reporting to the Minister for Agriculture. Stage 2 will see the development of a new framework for food safety in Victoria. This will consolidate existing food safety regulation and modernise the licensing, compliance and enforcement laws. The overriding aim of the framework will be to streamline regulatory processes and ensure greater consistency across the supply chain, from paddock to plate. This process is in early stages, and we plan to bring it before Parliament in 2027.

While our current system is working, there are issues that need to be addressed. Our food safety legislative framework is outdated and the regulatory structure is overly complex and devolved. Reviews have consistently identified that the system is not optimised to support businesses. It also struggles to respond to change. To outsiders it might not seem like food safety is a particularly dynamic field, but risks to our food safety are constantly changing. Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of risks from adverse weather events, such as pathogens being introduced to production or processing facilities by floodwater; warmer weather increasing the likelihood of moulds in feeds that can result in mycotoxins in dairy and meat products; and algal blooms contaminating seafood products. Advances in food production may also need a regulatory response. Emerging technologies such as cultivated or lab-grown meat and precision fermentation, which creates specific proteins such as egg whites without any animal involvement, pose new risks as well as opportunities. Take new markets such as insect protein, where there are potential contaminants and allergen risks – what are they? We need a regulatory system that is able to respond to these emerging challenges.

We have also identified challenges and inefficiencies in our current system. Take, for example, our ability to respond to major incidents. Incident response arrangements are currently different across three agriculture portfolio regulators, with centralised leadership by the Department of Health. However, there is limited incident response expertise and capacity within the agriculture regulators. Leadership of a response might also be different: if the issue relates to a licence, that is the regulator; a local council, that is Health; a specific food type, that is the regulator; or a non-regulated food, back to Health. Powers also differ between agencies, leading to inconsistent application at the moment. This was demonstrated most recently in the recall of a non-dairy yoghurt. While the business was DFSV licensed and Dairy Food Safety Victoria led the response, it was unclear if powers under the Dairy Act 2000 would be used. If Victoria were to suffer a truly widespread event such as the recent blue-green algal event in South Australia, the lack of a consolidated regulator has the potential to unnecessarily hamper response. Ensuring the ongoing strength and credibility of our food safety regulation is critical to maintaining public health and consumer market trust.

Safe Food Victoria will provide a single front door for businesses to interact and provide clarity of leadership for food safety operations. They will therefore be better placed to regulate for more complex businesses that might need to be regulated by multiple bodies, such as businesses that conduct multiple activities onsite that would otherwise be covered by different regulators, such as a cafe that might produce its own cheese or salami onsite; businesses that complete multiple parts of the supply chain onsite, such as a horticulture grower who also packages up onsite for retail sale; and businesses without a clear regulatory home, such as cell-based products. Take the example of a diversified farm business operating a farmgate retail outlet and cafe and some food manufacturing. They may require, as I said earlier, multiple regulators under the current regime. These arrangements can and should be simplified.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken as part of this reform, and the bill reflects the feedback provided from stakeholders. Through Engage Victoria the government received 123 submissions, and 93 per cent of the submissions were supportive of the planned efforts to improve the food regulatory system. More than 60 targeted consultations have been undertaken with key peak bodies and stakeholder groups. These consultations include extensive and thorough engagement with the dairy industry. In addition to the dairy roundtable, the dairy industry has been consulted in around 20 individual meetings since December 2024. This includes a meeting with a minister in November 2025. While we understand that they do not support the proposal, their views have been heard and have influenced the final design of the regulator.

I want to address one particular concern raised by the dairy industry, and that is that their fees will be used to subsidise regulation of other industries. I want to be very clear that cross-subsidisation will not occur. Each regulatory function in Safe Food Victoria is fully funded, either by fees or by government appropriation. A fee review will be conducted as part of stage 2 reforms to determine if any recalibration of fees should be conducted. As per government policy, this will be subject to the principle that fees should be based on the cost of regulation and that cross-sector subsidisation should not occur. Transparency on the revenue and expenditure of Safe Food Victoria will be provided through their annual reports.

In conclusion, firstly, I say that food labelling is a federal space, so that is my acknowledgement of the contribution from the Animal Justice Party and also some other comments about food labelling. I do feel some measure of frustration because the amendments from across the chamber, from the Nats, call for less regulation all the time. They want things to be simpler. They want life to be simpler. In principle they do not want rules. But already the amendments that have been called for here add complexity and add really historic scenarios to a modern piece of legislation, and I do find that quite frustrating. Lean and clean is the goal here, and that is what this bill will provide. A consolidated food safety regulator is a proven model that works in many places around the world. It works in New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand and many other international jurisdictions. I strongly recommend the bill to the house.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:13): I rise to speak to the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026 and make a few remarks in relation to this bill. I know my colleague Ms Bath has gone through in detail what the bill will do, and I am not going to repeat all of those aspects and the amendments that we have to the bill, which are important amendments. I was just listening to the member of the government, and I would say that Victorians want less intrusion by government. We want government out of our lives. We are absolutely sick of this government being in our lives. I want to go to the point of two particular aspects that I am interested in in this bill, because it is something that I think is partly the reason why we are debating this.

What this bill does, amongst a number of things, is establish Safe Food Victoria and provide for it to perform functions in regulating the Victorian food industry. The history of food safety regulation in Victoria is it is delivered through a combination of specialist regulators and government agencies. They include local councils and the Department of Health. That is where I want to go in my contribution, because it brings me to the I Cook Foods saga – ‘slug-gate’ I aptly named it. What happened was an absolute disgrace. Through the course of not one but two inquiries we found that the chief health officer actually did not provide evidence to the inquiry, then had to come back to the second inquiry and include that evidence. We found so many things that were inconsistent and incomplete. The committee members were provided with information as we were literally walking in the door.

Luckily I have a background, and I could actually read some of the reports, and I was questioning them at the time. I am raising this because it is important in relation to this bill because of what happened to Ian and Ben Cook and the Cook family when their business was shut down by the Dandenong council after Dr Sutton was given information. As the courts ruled, this business was unfairly shut down. There was an injustice that was done, and it has gone on for years. I am going back to those issues around what actually happened. As I was saying, I was looking at those reports, and I had questions regarding some of the samples. As we know, Mrs Painter, the woman who tragically died and was the subject of this case, was not found to have listeriosis in her bloodstream or body at the time of her death, because she had been successfully treated with antibiotics, but that was the reason that Dr Sutton said that she had died of listeria. In fact she had not; she was clear of listeriosis. There were other aspects that I was provided under privilege that never came out. The department fudged the evidence and fudged the information that we were provided with at the time, I believe, and it was very selective information that was provided. Again, as I said, the chief health officer had to come back and correct the evidence because he gave misleading evidence in the first inquiry.

Moving on from that, this is I believe partly why this bill is being brought into the house – because of the complete stuff-ups by the government, by the department and by the council in question. I want to give some context around this issue, because it was very dodgy from the outset. Community Chef, which was set up by Anthony Albanese and Daniel Andrews back in 2009 to get a social enterprise up and running, was in competition with I Cook Foods. Clearly there was an issue around that competitive nature, and it was all very suspect. Nevertheless, what happened happened. There was still a lot of information that I believe should have been further investigated and never was, including around the investigations that took place. What was found in the courts, which the government fought and fought and fought and fought and spent tens and tens of millions of dollars on to shut down the case, was that the chief health officer Brett Sutton did unfairly shut down I Cook Foods, and again, the government tried to hide everything. The Pitcher Partners report that was there talking about the huge losses of Community Chef, this competitor – look, the whole saga was dodgy. The Parliament did its best to get to the bottom of it. I do not believe we got to the bottom of it, because we never got the evidence that we should have.

Tom McIntosh: The MP who cried wolf.

Georgie CROZIER: You say that, Mr McIntosh – 41 people lost their jobs, a family lost their business.

Tom McIntosh: I actually wasn’t listening to you. Sorry.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, actually they are listening, and they have listened to me over this issue for many years. It was an injustice that was done, and the courts proved it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order! Direct your comments through the Chair, please.

Georgie CROZIER: I will note again the arrogance of the members on the other side around this really important issue where a family business was destroyed and where the chief health officer provided incomplete evidence to a parliamentary inquiry and had to come back and provide more evidence in the second inquiry, and then 41 people lost their livelihoods and their homes. The arrogance of members over there to say, ‘No-one’s listening.’ I tell you that the Cooks deserve better than the arrogance of the Andrews government, of the Allan government and of the dodgy practices that went on in the Department of Health. The Supreme Court’s own ruling said that this business was unfairly shut down. The courts found that in favour of the Cooks, and I will say that I am very proud to have known these two men that fought for justice. There was an injustice done here. Mrs Painter did not die of listeriosis. That was proven. She was free of listeriosis. There was evidence provided and given, and yet this business was shut down. To the day I leave this place I am going to say that the Cooks were unfairly treated by the Department of Health, by the Andrews government, as it was then. Community Chef was $7 million in debt, set up by Andrews and Albanese – all very convenient, because they were good mates. We had this legitimate business with 41 employees that lost their jobs and in some cases their homes.

Those opposite might not think that there is anything to worry about, but by God, there is. And I say again, the vast majority of Victorians were watching that case, and they had huge sympathy for the Cooks, because they knew that an injustice was done. It was a disgrace what had gone on and the lack of evidence that the parliamentary inquiry actually got. That is partly why we are debating this bill – because of the stuff-ups and the cover-ups and the cost to the Victorian taxpayer of the shutting down of I Cook Foods by the Department of Health. That is what this bill does. Take it out of the hands of local councils and incompetent people in the Department of Health, and we will hopefully get it sorted so we do not go through such a saga again.

I look forward to Ms Bath moving her amendments so that we can get some improvement to this bill. They are sensible amendments. They should be supported, given the nature of what they are asking to improve the bill on. I think some of those amendments around labelling – we want greater transparency. We want to know what we are eating. Is it the misleading descriptor prohibition? We want to know what we are eating. Is this fake meat, or is it actual meat? I mean, I am a farmer’s daughter. I have grown up eating meat. I do not want some fake burger named as meat. Almond milk: that is a fake name too; it is almond juice. I mean, for God’s sake, mandatory plant-based product disclosure should be an absolute given, and I think most reasonable Victorians would agree. I support Ms Bath’s amendments wholeheartedly, and I hope those over there do too.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:22): I rise to support the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026. I would just like to assure Ms Crozier – I walked in and I was not listening to her speech, but it was just the negative tone that we constantly hear droning from that side that I was commenting on. So to anyone listening, I was not making any reflection on the words that Ms Crozier may have been saying; it was the constant negativity that we hear from the coalition.

This bill will implement the first stage of a two-stage reform program to consolidate food safety regulators in Victoria. Stage 1 will see the establishment of Safe Food Victoria, effectively creating a single front door for food safety queries. Safe Food Victoria will be established by mid-2026, reporting to the Minister for Agriculture. The bill will create a new statutory authority, Safe Food Victoria, to replace PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria, as well as conduct the food safety regulatory functions currently undertaken by the Department of Health. PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria will be abolished. Stage 2 will see the development of a new framework for food safety in Victoria. The reforms will streamline regulatory processes, ensuring greater consistency across the supply chain from paddock to plate. This process is in the early stages and will continue through to 2027. This will strengthen our food safety system by making it more robust and responsive to effectively manage risk, foster innovation and facilitate continual improvement. In short, our food safety system will be even safer and smarter. Again, I would like to acknowledge the work of Minister Spence and her team. I would like to commend the bill to the house.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (17:24): I would like to begin my summing-up by paying tribute to our hardworking farmers. The work that they do is absolutely vital to the prosperity of our state and vital to all of us having food on our plates. We know that drought and bushfires have hurt our farmers, particularly in areas of Western Victoria, which I represent. What farmers need is reform that will make things easier for them, and that is what we believe this bill does.

This bill will strengthen food safety in Victoria by improving the administration of compliance and licensing. This will make the system easier for businesses and safer for Victorians. This is a proactive reform that ensures our food safety system is prepared for the risks that we face today and into the future. Our current system is overly complex, and we have got too many regulators: Dairy Food Safety Victoria, PrimeSafe, the Department of Health, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and of course the 79 councils. This does not protect Victorians or the reputation of our stellar agricultural industries. A single front door for queries, licensing and responses just makes sense. It is easier and will make Victorians safer. This is already working in numerous other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland and New Zealand.

I will now turn to addressing some of the comments raised during the debate from the opposition and the crossbench. In doing so I will also deal with a number of the amendments that will come before the committee directly. In terms of the issue of industry representation on the Safe Food Victoria board that has been flagged by those opposite, the government will be opposing this amendment. The bill sets out the skills required on the board, which represent best practice approaches to governance. Safe Food Victoria board members are there to provide governance to the entity, not to represent regulated industries. This would introduce the risk of conflict of interest. The bill already includes food industry and food safety as core skill requirements of the board, and consultative committees provide the appropriate pathway to obtain industry-sector expertise and perspectives. The minister will ensure a balanced representation, including regional Victoria, on the board when making appointments.

I understand that there is a proposal to mandate consultative committees for dairy and other sectors. In terms of what has been proposed by the opposition, we believe the legislation is not the right place to do this. The board should have the power to determine how it will use consultative committees and their structure, function and processes. If necessary, the Minister for Agriculture will be able to use a statement of expectations or their directions powers in regard to the use of consultative committees. Forcing the creation of committees in legislation would overrule the board, remove stakeholder input from the process and lead to unnecessary administrative burden and greater costs for industry.

I also understand there are concerns around the cross-subsidising of industries; that has been called out by a number of people. There are calls for the establishment of sector-specific funds in addition to the general fund included in the bill. The government’s view is that this would introduce cumbersome legislative provisions that would increase administrative costs, which would be reflected in licence fees. Sector-specific funds are unnecessary as all funds are fully funded to avoid the chance of cross-subsidisation. PrimeSafe already has a model to manage funds from multiple sectors, including meat, chicken, seafood, game et cetera. PrimeSafe is able to account for and provide advice on these different industries to its board to inform decision-making processes. A similar approach can be replicated with Safe Food Victoria by having separate cost centres.

I also understand some members would like to see a mandatory review stage included in this legislation. I can advise that as part of stage 1 of the government’s food reforms an evaluation framework is already being developed by the Department of Treasury and Finance. There will also be further reviews through stage 2 of our food reforms. I also want to make it clear in relation to the declared food category that the intent is to provide a flexible regime. The declaration process is not about deciding whether food should be regulated or not; it is about being clear who the right regulator is – in this case, local council or Safe Food Victoria. In the absence of a declaration these foods would still be legal for sale but would fall into the regulatory remit of councils, which may not hold the specific relevant expertise.

I also know that members in the other place raised concerns, and indeed Ms Bath did as well, about the labelling of meat or milk for plant-based or cell-cultured proteins and dairy alternatives. This legislation, the government believes, is not the right place for these concerns to be addressed. Any changes to labelling of plant-based or cell-cultured proteins and dairy alternatives should be introduced via amendments to the Food Standards Code or the Australian Consumer Law to ensure national consistency, and this of course is a matter for the Commonwealth. There is also no evidence of a problem. Consumer research published by Food Standards Australia New Zealand in 2025 found consumers were not confused about plant-based products. I do not believe anyone buying almond milk – we have heard this before, time and time again –believes that almonds are actually lactating.

I am also aware that some members have asked, ‘What are the benefits of regulating cell-based foods by Safe Food Victoria versus local councils?’ If no amendments are made to Victorian legislation, local councils would be the regulators of cell-cultured foods. Local council environmental health officers may not have the appropriate expertise to adequately regulate these food products. Without Safe Food Victoria taking on this regulatory function, each council would need to develop expertise in what is a highly specialised and complex area of food technology. The establishment of Safe Food Victoria provides an opportunity to provide a fit-for-purpose regulatory approach where oversight of these products and other emerging products produced with new technologies can be centralised. Safe Food Victoria will be better able to develop the specialised expertise needed for efficient and effective regulation, and Safe Food Victoria will also be better able to support businesses to establish themselves in Victoria.

I also know that there is some interest in what the fees will be for cell-based food businesses. The actual fee will not be determined at the launch of Safe Food Victoria as it is subject to both a declaration from the minister and a fee determination by the board. This process will be progressed post launch, as no businesses currently produce cell-cultured food for sale in Victoria. It is intended that the declared foods be subject to cost recovery via licence fees, in the same way that existing businesses regulated by Dairy Food Safety Victoria and PrimeSafe are. It is expected that Safe Food Victoria will fix fees that must be paid by declared food licence holders at the level that fully recovers the cost of regulating those businesses. It will be appropriate for the size and stage of that industry. There is no flat fee structure applied across sectors. Context will remain important. The power to fix fees rests with the SFV board, who will need to have consideration for both the level that fully recovers the cost of regulating those businesses and broader government policy. Fee-setting is done to avoid cross-subsidisation. Meat or dairy licences will not be paying for cell-culture regulatory activity. For single businesses, the regulatory effect will be relatively small, involving things like desktop review of a licence application, a standard audit, follow-up questions and other administration.

Then, of course, there is the question of, ‘Well, how will the efficiencies be generated by Safe Food Victoria?’ Safe Food Victoria will put downward pressure on the cost of regulation. For example, the administration costs of hosting four primary regulators are often duplicative: two CEOs and executive staff in departments; four-plus separate IT systems that do not connect; 17 board positions; and four separate work sites. Safe Food Victoria will improve efficiency by removing duplicative elements of the regulatory system without cutting frontline staff. This is expected to improve the underlying cash balance of the regulator by around $1 million per annum, and this will allow the board to consider additional investment in regulatory infrastructure, increased capacity or, if appropriate, a reduction in fees to match the new operating environment.

In conclusion, you have heard in the contributions from members in this place and in the other place about the importance of the agriculture industry and the need to be proactive in protecting the sector and of course Victorians. This reform will mean that we can effectively manage food risks in the 21st century. It will make Victorians safer and make things easier for our farmers and businesses. I again wish to thank our farmers for the vital work that they do in keeping our regions thriving and keeping this great state fed. I trust that I have addressed many of the concerns members have raised through this summing-up speech, and of course I will be happy to continue to go through the issues as they come before the committee.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger) (17:36): I have considered the amendments on sheet MB21C, circulated by Ms Bath, and in my view amendments 1 and 22 are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:36): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have the power to consider and amend a new clause to amend the Food Act 1984 in relation to the use of certain terms in advertising, packaging and labelling of certain foods.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

Clause 1 (17:38)

Melina BATH: What I intend to do, if it is convenient – I have got a lot of questions on different clauses – is I will go through them all now while there are a limited number of people in the house, and then we go from there when the amendments come through. Speaking with industry, industry is concerned that this new regulator will be so large in its amalgamation that support will decline, concerns and emerging risks will not be managed in an appropriate timeframe and it will be large and sluggish. These are some of the conversations that my colleague Ms Kealy has had with industry. Why is there no guarantee that support for the Victorian producers will not be reduced under this new regulator?

Gayle TIERNEY: The government believes that there will be a more efficient way, a single front door, for farmers and those that are heavily connected with industry to have their questions and issues raised and addressed.

Melina BATH: In relation to the policy position and food safety standards, how can the government guarantee that they will not fall below those that are currently in existence under current legislation, and why has the government chosen not to actually guarantee those expressly in the bill?

Gayle TIERNEY: The purpose of the reform is actually how we can regulate the industry better, and it must include options to reconsider the appropriate level of regulation. Inclusion of this clause may limit the regulator’s ability to consider new ways of working or opportunities to reduce regulatory burden. While we are supportive of the broad intention of the proposal – and this is in relation to your amendment 2 – that reform must not reduce the protection of health from harms associated with consuming food and industry support offered through regulation, locking the regulator into a static 2026 state we believe would be short-sighted. The purpose of the reform is to enable a better, more flexible framework for the regulator to implement in response to shifting practices and risks. The phasing is too uncertain, and it is unclear how this new requirement might impact valid changes in practice. For example, the recent approach to reducing the number of audits for some meat businesses might be considered not maintaining the same level of support or safety, despite being risk-based and backed by the industry.

Melina BATH: In relation to the industry support for dairy and for meat – and they have certainly raised their concerns with us and regional food producers – is it the government’s intent that it will be at least maintained at the existing levels of support? And in terms of not embedding this in the legislation, why aren’t you embedding this level of support, leaving it to administration or administrative discretion?

Gayle TIERNEY: The concern is that if there was a committee for every single issue or concern, then nothing would get done and there would be very little coordination. That is why the government, through its consultations, has arrived at the proposition that is before the house tonight.

Melina BATH: In relation to board compositions and governance – and I think you made some comments in your summing-up – I felt that the insinuation or the reflection on the bill was that you cannot be a person with industry experience and provide good governance. It felt to me in your summing-up that you were separating those out, so please respond to clarify that. But the government’s rationale about not requiring representation of the key sectors – dairy, seafood, meat, horticulture, eggs – in the Safe Food Victoria (SFV) board I do not understand. Explain to me why the government is not using that rationale.

Gayle TIERNEY: The headline in all of that is the distinction, really, between governance and governance skills and a governance framework versus a representative body. The clauses in the bill outlining the skills required on the board represent best practice contemporary approaches to governance of statutory entities. The focus is appropriately on the skills that the board requires in order to effectively undertake its functions within a governance framework. The board members need to provide strategic governance of the entity, not represent regulated industries. It is clear. This amendment would potentially introduce the risk of conflicts of interest and the risk of real or perceived regulatory capture. Due to the number of regulated industries, it would be impractical to have a representative from every part of the food industry and supply chain. The board would need to be enormous to be representative and not favour any one industry. The industries proposed to be required to be represented by this amendment represent only a fraction – around 12,000 – of the industries and food businesses that will be regulated by Safe Food Victoria’s remit of over 110,000. The proposed amendment would exclude retail service, manufacturing, export, cell-based and sprouts industries, just to name a few. The bill already includes food industry and food safety as core skill requirements of the board. I think that is the key in that.

In addition, the inclusion in the bill of the statutory consultative committees, the advice of which the board is obligated to have regard for, provides the appropriate pathway to obtain industry sector expertise and perspectives. The minister will ensure that the board has appropriately balanced representation, including for regional Victoria, when making appointments. She has done this for the current boards, which contain multiple regional members.

Melina BATH: Just let me understand: will there be any board positions reserved for industry representatives?

Gayle TIERNEY: What there will be is representatives – I think there will be five mandatory board positions of a total of seven, and that will cover the dairy, meat, seafood, horticulture and egg industries.

Melina BATH: There will be five out of seven, and they will cover those Are they not industry representatives?

Gayle TIERNEY: No, they are not. I have already explained that board members need to provide strategic governance of the entity, not represent regulated industries, and that has been clear through all of the consultations.

Melina BATH: You have just mentioned that there are going to be those five on there. I need you to define the difference.

Gayle TIERNEY: These are people that have got a background in the nature of the issues before the board, but they are there for governance. There seems to be a difficulty in understanding the difference between governance frameworks and boards that are there to represent industries. They are not there to represent industries. The consultative committees do have the representation from industry on them.

Melina BATH: In relation to the discretionary consultative committees, rather than mandating specific industry committees, why is the government just relying on discretionary consultative committees rather than actually mandating them?

Gayle TIERNEY: I spoke of this in my summing-up speech, but I will go through it again. The board is the most appropriate body to determine how it will use consultative committees to support its regulatory approach. By restricting or requiring specific committees in legislation the board would have to reduce flexibility in determining how committees will function and the efficiency and how they will run, noting that the optimum consultative committee structure may change over time due to changes in food supply chain and as the regulator matures.

The approach proposed by these amendments would lead to an unnecessary administrative burden and costs being passed on to the industry. It is important that stakeholders also have a role in shaping how consultative committees themselves are structured and function. The legislation offers the framework for the board to operate within, futureproofing the arrangement. In practice we expect the board to establish multiple committees representing key industries such as dairy and meat, regulatory partners such as local government or public health stakeholders. If needed, the Minister for Agriculture will be able to use the statement of expectations or the directions powers under the bill to influence the board’s approach in relation to consultative committees. In modern legislation, consultative committee provisions tend to be general in nature, allowing the board or the minister to establish the most appropriate consultative committees at a point in time. Examples where consultative committees have been prescribed, such as in relation to Alpine Resorts Victoria, where each individual resort has a consultative committee, are not comparable to Safe Food Victoria. The prescribed consultative committees are required in this case because Alpine Resorts Victoria is responsible for direct management of each of the alpine resorts rather than their regulation as such, with each being unique in character and structure with unique strengths and challenges.

Melina BATH: I go now to my amendment 9. It is about transparency and performance. Why has the government not chosen to mandate reporting on inspections, enforcement actions and food safety incidents?

Gayle TIERNEY: The bill already includes provisions requiring reporting of performance. Information on activities and performance will be included in the SFV annual report. Performance indicators and measures are best developed through the SFV strategic planning processes and the minister’s statement of expectations. The proposed inclusions reflect the existing annual reporting practices of PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria or Food Act 1984 reporting requirements. It is expected that this reporting will continue to occur and be improved by SFV. In terms of inspections, figures appear in the annual reports and include headline numbers of audits and inspections. In terms of directions, annual reports include the use of relevant enforcement tools such as orders or notices, but it is unclear if these would be captured by the proposed amendment or why the directions given by the authorised officers and inspectors are subject to reporting but not directions given by the relevant authorities, such as SFV. In terms of incidents, what an incident entails is not clear, but recalls, enforcement activity and convictions are all captured in public reporting. In terms of fees, they are transparently reflected in financial statements each year, which are required to be reported under the Financial Management Act 1994. In respect to trends, the annual reports provide a narrative about foodborne illness trends. Prescribing these measures via legislation adds an unnecessary burden to the regulator, potentially introducing administrative duplication and driving up costs, which will ultimately be borne by regulated sectors. It may also have the perverse outcome of constraining the development of fit-for-purpose performance reporting. We believe that the amendment will also duplicate and potentially conflict with the Food Act’s section 7D requirements for the reporting of council performance.

Melina BATH: Minister, in relation to PrimeSafe as a specific example, PrimeSafe is required to report on key indicators to support transparency and accountability around their activities. You did mention identifying trends potentially in food safety incidents. If they are only reported in an annual report – and some of these food safety trends can be compromising or affect biosecurity – how does the government intend to deal with that risk of only reporting annually to the broader community but also to stakeholders?

Gayle TIERNEY: There will be more regular reporting than just in the annual report. The board will receive reports from the different sectors, and there will be interactions between the consultative committees to the board that will also provide information to the board about how that is working, and then feedback to the stakeholders will occur as well. It is a practice that happens in terms of most modern regulatory situations now.

Melina BATH: So then the board has got an understanding. How is that information transferred over to the minister? Because the minister is ultimately the responsible person. Particularly if there are trends that are worrying in terms of food safety, what is that process? Is it a regular process? What can the industry expect will go to the minister’s ears and understanding?

Gayle TIERNEY: The department will be present at all board meetings, and the chair can also separately make communications and information available to the minister.

Melina BATH: That is helpful. In relation to part 3, on financial accountability in relation to pooling industry-specific fees into the single general fund, I noticed, Minister, in your summing up you said, ‘All will be well’, in effect. You said that it is all going to go into one, and then funds will be allocated. Can you please unpack that further? When a dairy industry producer has created those funds in the past and will continue to pay fees, what sort of assurance can there be that funds paid by a sector, by an industry person or a farmer, will actually be used in the context of what is needed for that industry?

Gayle TIERNEY: I will go to some points that are actually raised in your amendments on this point. We believe that the amendments introduce a cumbersome, impractical and unnecessary legislative provision that would create increases in administrative costs and ultimately be reflected in higher licence fees. Every financial decision of the regulator would require consideration of what portion of each person’s job the contract being negotiated or the accommodation being signed on to was a dairy function or a meat function, requiring considerably more administrative and financial effort to manage. The purported problem being solved in cross-subsidisation, however – this is not a problem for the regulator, in that all functions are fully funded. Each function transferring is fully paid for by either cost recovery – that is PrimeSafe and DFSV – or appropriation through the Department of Health. We also expect the overall cost of delivering regulatory services to reduce due to the consolidation under the proposal. It would be impossible to allocate this reduction: for example, to which industry would the reduced accommodation footprint be allocated?

PrimeSafe already has a model to manage funding from multiple sectors – meat, chicken, seafood and game – and is able to account for and provide advice on these different industries to its board to inform decision-making processes. It is well established; it is not new. The approach is understood and accepted by industries regulated by PrimeSafe, despite similar concerns being raised when the Seafood Safety Act 2003 was introduced, so we have already got a live example of how it works and how it functions properly. While the financial management of SFV will be a matter for its board, we expect that it will build upon and learn from the approach established from the example of what has happened with PrimeSafe with seafood coming into it. The government’s guidance on the setting of fees, the pricing-for-value guidelines, is applied by regulators and mandates how fee setting is balanced across 12 pricing principles. This approach will be applied to the Safe Food Victoria arrangements, and as part of stage 2 reforms Safe Food Victoria will be supported in conducting a pricing review to support the board setting new fees under the new operating model.

Melina BATH: Can you speak then further to the transparency around those arrangements? Clearly there are – and Minister Spence would have had these – concerns from industry. What measures is the government going to provide the individual sector around that financial transparency to ensure that there is some level of confidence here? What is the government doing? What is the policy on this financial transparency other than diminishing industry confidence?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that the process will be very similar to what is operating at PrimeSafe, where there are cost centres and everything can be tracked and traced and it is transparent.

Melina BATH: I am just going to ask then: how does that transparency manifest itself to either the public or industry representatives?

Gayle TIERNEY: The prime area will be via annual reports tabled in this Parliament.

Melina BATH: So that is a once-a-year assurity in effect, what you are saying, in terms of that transparency, noting that the bill is going to come into effect and then take time.

Gayle TIERNEY: But I would imagine that the consultative committees would be interested –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, Ms Bath has the call.

Melina BATH: So, Minister, there is no formal pathway, other than an annual report, that is legislated or in regulation to inform those consultative committees?

Gayle TIERNEY: There will be interactions, obviously, between the consultative committee and the board. They will be doing that with a whole range of issues, and this will be another one.

Melina BATH: Minister, in terms of fee increases or levy increases as part of the transition to the new food regulator, will the minister guarantee that there will be no increases in the next 12 months as part of this transition, noting that this is a significant change for industry?

Gayle TIERNEY: The framework that exists just is not going to change at all. The normal processes will be undertaken. There is no difference in terms of the establishment of these new arrangements.

Melina BATH: So in essence there is still that flexibility within the system to put the fees up, potentially the month after this comes through – it still exists?

Gayle TIERNEY: That certainly is not the intention at all. I think it would be a miscarriage if someone was to walk out of here or look at Hansard and take that as what will potentially happen. It just will not.

Melina BATH: Minister, nor am I suggesting it. I am just asking from a legislative point of view if that has the potential to do that. Whether it does or not is a matter for the new system.

Gayle TIERNEY: And I take this –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, can you just wait until I give you the call. Minister.

Gayle TIERNEY: Thank you, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is not a conversation; it is a process. So, Minister.

Gayle TIERNEY: I have been here for a bit of time – I understand the rules.

Ms Bath, in terms of what I indicated to you before, I take this opportunity also to put on the record that it would be very unfortunate for someone to interpret what I have said in Hansard, as the intention is for the same framework and the same arrangements to be put in place, not to try and indicate to the public that this somehow will trigger an increase. It is just simply not going to.

Melina BATH: The status quo applies, is what you are saying.

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Melina BATH: In terms of an independent review, why does the government’s policy framework not require an independent review by the new regulator during its first three years of operation? What assurance does the industry have that unintended consequences will be identified early and rectified?

Gayle TIERNEY: To introduce a rolling program of review before a system is fully reformed, we believe, would be potentially wasteful and inefficient. As each review was completed the next one would begin, allowing no time for the important work of the regulator to begin or for the flagged stage 2 reforms to be conducted and no time for any of these changes to be implemented. Time is required to bed down the changes and for the new organisation to begin to realise efficiencies. An evaluation framework to measure the outcomes of Safe Food Victoria reforms is already under development in collaboration with the Department of Treasury and Finance, and this will feed into annual reporting, which is already tabled in the Parliament. Parliament is well placed to provide ongoing oversight of the performance of government entities such as Safe Food Victoria and of the operation of legislation through a range of existing mechanisms, including of course questions with and without notice, review of the tabled annual reports and parliamentary inquiries.

Melina BATH: It is a long time. I would hate for the industry to be waiting for a parliamentary inquiry to be conducted and responded to by government, but it is a legislative tool, I guess is what you are saying.

Gayle TIERNEY: I took that as a comment.

Melina BATH: One of the concerns that industry has is in relation to exports and export approvals and export standards. I just want to understand a bit further about how this new Safe Food Victoria will be able to maintain that high level of export approvals and export standards and oversight in the transition over. What will be done to ensure that, because that is of industry concern?

Gayle TIERNEY: The same arrangements will apply with the Commonwealth. They are saying – and have assured the Victorian government – that there will be no impacts. As you know, that area is quite a discrete responsibility of the federal government.

Melina BATH: These are some questions that Ms Kealy has in relation to declared foods, and these relate to the emerging products, including cell-cultivated meat. She asks in relation to new foods being declared but with no mandate that new foods are to have regulations issued. Could you explain further around how soon after a new food is declared the government anticipates regulations to be issued?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is probably a good idea to actually talk about the framing of this whole thing before we get into the specifics. The intent of the newly designed declared food category is to provide a flexible regime allowing Safe Food Victoria to quickly adopt and adapt to new and emerging food technologies based on a ministerial declaration. The proposed clause would require the creation of regulations for each food or class of food, adding in significant administrative burden and delay, which is not warranted by the nature of the proposed decision. It is unclear what additional benefit having a list of foods in regulation versus a ministerial declaration brings beyond the already public process of a declaration. The declaration process is not about deciding whether food should be regulated or not; it is about being clear who the right regulator is – in this case local council or Safe Food Victoria. In the absence of a declaration, these foods would still be legal for sale but would fall into the regulatory remit of councils, which may not hold the specific relevant expertise, which I indicated in my summing up.

Food legislation has similar arrangements, such as through the use of declared authority orders under section 41 of the Food Act. Foods such as cell-cultured food already require approval under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The declaration is not designed to circumvent these binational decisions. The minister already has this power under section 5 of the Food Act should there be a need to exclude a food business from the requirements of registration, noting this is an extremely rare power to use.

Melina BATH: In relation to declared foods not paying regulatory fees or levies, will it be expected that once declared, the newly declared food will have to pay a fee or a levy? How will the rate be determined, noting that it is not included in legislation?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is a decision of the board, but there will be thorough consultation to actually work out the proper balance and what the level might be.

Melina BATH: I certainly take your point, Minister, that councils are not necessarily equipped to be food regulators on a mass scale. I do not see them as that anyway. How will that intersect with Safe Food Victoria? How will the decision be made that it is captured by councils or by the safe food regulator? What will that look like, please?

Gayle TIERNEY: Obviously before a new food can be introduced there needs to be a declaration, and with that declaration it is determined who is best placed to deal with it at the time, whether it is local council or Safe Food Victoria.

Melina BATH: Probably one of my last questions on this is: does the government see any emerging trends? I am just wanting to get an understanding for the current industries – we will say cattle, beef et cetera. Has the government done any research or modelling? Do we anticipate that this is going to be an emerging and growing area or it is going to be quite bespoke and small? If it is going to be quite significant – I am not saying it is or is not, I am just trying to seek some understanding – how will government support councils to deal with these sorts of emerging foods and trends?

Gayle TIERNEY: One of the areas which the board will be looking at is trends. Then there will be assessments made as to what is actually happening not just locally; they will also be mindful of what trends are happening in particularly First World nations and advances or changes that are happening with regard to that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendment 22.

Melina BATH: This amendment 1 restricts the use of certain dairy and meat terminology. This was part of the instruction motion, and it explicitly adds to the bill to amend the Food Act 1984 to regulate labelling and food terms. I have canvassed it well, as has Ms Kealy in the other house. I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 9 insert –

“(ca) to amend the Food Act 1984 in relation to the use of certain terms in the advertising, packaging and labelling of certain foods; and”.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting the amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 4 (18:26)

Melina BATH: This is about maintaining food safety and industry support. I move:

2.   Clause 4, line 28, before “The” insert “(1)”.

3.   Clause 4, page 4, after line 11 insert –

“(2) Without limiting subsection (1), it is the intention of the Parliament that Victoria’s food industry is to be regulated under this Act in a way that –

(a)   ensures a level of food safety that is not less than the level of food safety that was provided for by the laws under which that industry was regulated before the commencement of this Act; and

(b)   supports that industry to no lesser degree than it was supported, before the commencement of this Act, under the laws referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting the amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Harriet SHING: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day pursuant to standing order 4.01(3) be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Clause agreed to, clauses 5 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (18:30)

Melina BATH: This is in relation to board member appointments criteria. I move:

4.   Clause 14, after line 11 insert –

“(1A) In appointing persons as members of the Board under subsection (1), the Minister must ensure that for each of the following industries the Board includes one person who has substantial experience in that industry and who is appointed in respect of that industry –

(a)   the dairy industry;

(b)   the meat and livestock industry;

(c)   the seafood industry;

(d)   the horticulture industry;

(e)   the egg industry.

(1B) A person may not be appointed in respect of more than one industry specified in subsection (1A).

(1C) In appointing persons as members of the Board under subsection (1), the Minister must ensure that the Board includes one person who –

(a)   resides in rural or regional Victoria; and

(b)   has experience in food production in rural or regional Victoria.”.

5.   Clause 14, after line 28 insert –

“(4) A member of the Board appointed in accordance with subsection (1C) does not cease to hold office as a member by reason only of the fact that the member no longer resides in rural or regional Victoria.

(5) In this section –

rural or regional Victoria has the same meaning as it has in section 3(1) of the Regional Development Victoria Act 2002.”.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will be opposing the amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

Georgie PURCELL: This is an amendment to add an animal welfare representative to the Safe Food Victoria board. I move:

1.   Clause 14, after line 21 insert –

“(fa) animal welfare;”.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals support the highest animal welfare standards, but there is also area in where that is covered – that is in Agriculture Victoria, it is in the POCTA bill. It does not sit in the Safe Food Victoria food safety and market assurance bill.

Gayle TIERNEY: I advise that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 25 (18:37)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendments 6, 7 and 8.

Melina BATH: I move:

6.   Clause 25, page 15, line 10, before “appoint any person” insert “subject to subsection (2B),”.

7.   Clause 25, page 15, after line 14 insert –

“(2A) In establishing consultative committees under subsection (2), the Board must establish –

(a)   a consultative committee in respect of the dairy industry; and

(b)   a consultative committee in respect of the meat and livestock industry; and

(c)   a consultative committee in respect of the seafood industry; and

(d)   a consultative committee in respect of the horticulture industry; and

(e)   a consultative committee in respect of the egg industry.

(2B) In appointing persons as members of a consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A), the Board must ensure that at least a majority of the members of that committee have substantial experience in the industry in respect of which the consultative committee is established.”.

8.   Clause 25, page 15, after line 16 insert –

“(3A) In referring a matter to a consultative committee under subsection (3), the Board must –

(a)   if the matter relates to the dairy industry, refer the matter to the consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A)(a); and

(b)   if the matter relates to the meat and livestock industry, refer the matter to the consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A)(b); and

(c)   if the matter relates to the seafood industry, refer the matter to the consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A)(c); and

(d)   if the matter relates to the horticulture industry, refer the matter to the consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A)(d); and

(e)   if the matter relates to the egg industry, refer the matter to the consultative committee established in accordance with subsection (2A)(e).”.

This is to do with consultative committee requirements in the act.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will oppose this amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Clause 35 (18:41)

Melina BATH: I move:

9.   Clause 35, after line 17 insert –

“(ca) the number of inspections undertaken –

(i)   during that financial year; and

(ii)   under food legislation; and

(iii)   by an authorised officer who is –

(A)   authorised under section 20(1D) of the Food Act 1984; or

(B)   appointed under section 43 of the Dairy and Food Innovation Act 2000; or

(C)   a person who, under the Meat Industry Act 1993, is appointed as, or has the powers of an inspector; or

(D)   a person who, under the Meat Industry Act 1993, is authorised to be an inspector by an inspection service approved under section 7 of that Act;

(cb) the number of occasions during that financial year on which an authorised officer referred to in paragraph (ca)(iii) has given a direction under food legislation to –

(i)   ensure compliance with food legislation; or

(ii)   address a potential danger to public health;

(cc) the food safety incidents that occurred during that financial year;

(cd) the fees collected by Safe Food Victoria during that financial year;

(ce) trends occurring during that financial year in relation to illnesses, conditions and diseases that are or may be related to food;”.

This is in relation to annual reporting requirements.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 36 (18:46)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendments 10 and 11 to clause 36, which test your amendments 12 to 13 and 15 to 18.

Melina BATH: I move:

10.   Clause 36, line 3, before “Safe” insert “(1)”.

11.   Clause 36, after line 4 insert –

“(2) The General Fund is to be divided into –

(a)   the Dairy and Food Innovation account; and

(b)   the Food Act account; and

(c)   the Meat Industry account; and

(d)   the Seafood Safety account; and

(e)   the general account.”.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will oppose the amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

New clause (18:50)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendment 14, which includes a new clause.

Melina BATH: On behalf of the Liberals and Nationals, I move:

14.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 44 –

“43A Review of Act

(1) For each of the first 3 years in which this Act is in operation, the Minister must cause –

(a)   an independent review to be conducted of the operation and effectiveness, during that year, of this Act and the amendments made by this Act; and

(b)   a report of that review to be prepared.

(2) A review –

(a)   is to be commenced as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the year to which the review relates; and

(b)   must examine –

(i)   the effectiveness of the regulatory scheme provided for by this Act; and

(ii)   the costs imposed on industry under that scheme; and

(iii)   the impact of that scheme on food safety; and

(iv)   the impact of that scheme relating to accreditations issued for the export of food produced in Victoria; and

(c)   is to be completed no later than 3 months after it commences.

(4) The report of a review is to be given to the Minister as soon as practicable after it is completed.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of a review to be laid before each House of the Parliament no later than 14 sitting days after receiving it.”.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting this.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 82 (18:53)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, I invite you to move your amendment 19, which tests your amendments 20 and 21.

Melina BATH: This is in relation to declared food. I move:

19.   Clause 82, lines 28 to 30, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘“declared food means –

(a)   any food or class of food that –

(i)   is permitted for sale under Part 1.5 of the Food Standards Code; and

(ii)   is not meat regulated under the Meat Industry Act 1993; and

(iii)   is not seafood regulated under the Seafood Safety Act 2003; and

(iv)   is prescribed by the regulations; or

Note

Special provisions apply to the making of regulations for the purposes of this paragraph – see section 61(1A).

(b)   meat that is cell-cultured food (within the meaning of Standard 1.1.2 of the Food Standards Code);’.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will be opposing this.

Council divided on amendment:

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (18:58): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (18:58): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the bill has been agreed to without amendment.