I rise today to speak on the Safe Food Victoria Bill 2026. In opening, given the incredible impacts of fuel shortages across the state, I would like to acknowledge our amazing farmers, our growers across the state, who are tackling some difficult conditions at this point in time.
It is not about the cost of fuel, it is about access to fuel. The fact of the matter is: if there is no fuel, there is no food. I was contacted by Aaron Emmerson, who has a property just south-west of Horsham, late last night. He cannot secure enough diesel for the upcoming seeding season. In fact at this point in time it looks like he can only sow 25 per cent of his usual crop. It is a very deep concern for our farmers, who literally cannot operate their businesses because they cannot access diesel.
I again urge the Labor government to take action to make sure that we have those fuel supplies prioritised for the industries that need them and for our food growers across the state and to make sure we are supporting our freight lines so we can get our food from the farm gate to market and we can keep our supermarket shelves filled, because we are at a critical point in time when it comes to food security in Victoria and agricultural security.
It is deeply concerning when in the conversations I am having across the state ‘This is going to be worse than COVID; there will be food shortages that will be worse than COVID’ is being uttered. Please, government, work with the feds, have an allocation from the stockpile put towards the spot market to make sure that independent distributors can get to every corner of the state. It is putting incredible pressure on our farming communities, on our growers.
We do not even know if we can get fuel for school buses or our emergency services vehicles. We need this sorted. The spot price market is about taking a risk on the cost of the fuel, it is not about taking a risk on whether the fuel will be supplied or not. I acknowledge the great work of our farmers and industry, particularly our freight industry. They do so much for our state and our country. We need to support them right now, not in the future but right now.
I come back to the Safe Food Victoria Bill. This is a piece of legislation that has been flagged for some period of time, including through the government’s Economic Growth Statement, and it was reiterated in the Silver review late last year. It will seek to effectively bring all of the food safety regulators from across the state into one entity with the intent that this will streamline the regulation of foods across the state, making it easier. It will also capture novel foods such as lab-grown meat.
The concern is, though, that PrimeSafe and Dairy Food Safety Victoria are dissolved as part of this legislation. These two organisations have been operating for a long period of time. They have dealt with serious issues in their own industries and have a level of expertise as a result of that, which is quite nuanced and specific to the challenges that they have faced and are likely to face in the future.
Certainly it is an emphatic concern from across particularly the dairy industry but also the meat industry and the pork industry, that aspects of these amendments carry a huge risk, with a limited understanding of what the actual benefit will be for growers who rely on the reputation that Victoria grows top-quality food and when there is a contamination issue, for example, that it is dealt with – there is a prompt response; it is a rapid response – and that food is highly respected in this state.
Everybody is working hard to ensure that is the outcome. But without any guarantees that there will be a reduction in the cost of regulation of food in Victoria, when there is the converse thought that this actually may create a bureaucratic nightmare and become more complex because there will not be those individual nuances and that expertise that you see in the food regulators when they are grouped by commodity and therefore have their own level of expertise, there is a fear that we will end up worse off rather than better off.
The Nationals and Liberals will be seeking a series of amendments, and the intent of them is that we can ensure that there is comfort and confidence by our growers that they know that they will have a voice at the table, that they will have expertise going into the new entity, Safe Food Victoria, and that they will have confidence that their voice will be heard because they will be part of the decision-making into the future.
The other aspect which is causing some concern is particularly related to Dairy Food Safety Victoria, and that is in relation to the regulatory assets that they hold. In lay terms, each of the food safety entities derives their own levies which fund the regulatory requirements of that specific sector.
Dairy Food Safety Victoria in particular have accumulated a large sum of money. They are concerned that that money will be potentially gobbled up by the new entity, Safe Food Victoria, and will not be set aside only for regulatory compliance issues and risks around dairy.
We have a perverse situation where the funds that have been accumulated over some time by dairy producers could be used to cover novel groups or plant-based groups, including plant-based ‘milks’, for want of a better term, as they are commercially known.
We have a situation where any funds that are accumulated by the meat industry through PrimeSafe or other entities could be used to provide regulatory support and funding support for lab-grown meat, a direct competitor to their market. I have had discussions with the minister’s office around this, and I believe that there are opportunities to ensure that those assets are protected for the commodity groups that have contributed to that into the future.
It is something that has been flagged, particularly by the dairy industry, and I do commend the dairy industry for their advocacy in this space, because they certainly have worked throughout the Engage Victoria process to convey their views on the risks around the legislation that is before us today and the intent to disband Dairy Food Safety Victoria and create a new entity of Safe Food Victoria and they continue in that advocacy today.
They have been clear in their ask and they have been persistent in their ask, and there is vast support for them across the state in other commodity areas as well. But I would reiterate it is not just dairy that have concerns around this legislation. There are certainly those within the broader meat sector and the egg sector that have concerns around aspects of this legislation.
In saying that, it does not mean that it is completely broken. I think there are just aspects that people want confidence to be able to move ahead on. As I flagged, there will be amendments we will pursue in the Legislative Council in relation to that. Those amendments will be around ensuring that there is certain industry representation on the board of Safe Food Victoria.
We believe that having a skillsbased board is good, but when you are looking at something as complex as food safety, where there is a depth of knowledge of the industry and the risks they currently face and will face in the future, that should be at the decision-making table of the board so there is an understanding of what the risk horizon looks like for this new entity. We will be seeking specific industry representation on the board.
We will also seek to build into legislation the establishment of certain consultative committees which are reflective of commodity groups which are already covered by the entities that will be dissolved but also to ensure that with the wider producers that will be covered by Safe Food Victoria in the future, whether through this first tranche of changes or in future changes, we have commodity groups who have an opportunity to provide specific input, a specific level of expertise, and above all else ensure that growers in those key commodity areas have a level of comfort that they will have their voice heard and they will be included in decisions in relation to their own industry.
We will also seek to have representation on the board from a member from regional Victoria. So often we see boards that are predominantly made up of people from metropolitan areas. They are from Melbourne generally, sometimes from the larger regional cities as well. Given that the bulk of the people who will be impacted by Safe Food Victoria are based in regional Victoria, we are seeking to have in law that one of the board members must be a representative who lives in regional Victoria.
It is important for us that regional Victorians get to have their say. It is a different environment when you are having to live and work with the impacts of decisions made by large entities in a regional context. We have a different perspective in the country on many things and for many different reasons, but having a board which is full of people who are based in Melbourne does not really reflect some of the other nuances of the industries that Safe Food Victoria will govern.
We will also seek that amendment in the Legislative Council. We will also seek to protect industry cost-recovery funds, which I have gone through previously in relation to Dairy Food Safety Victoria in particular but also PrimeSafe. We also flag concerns and will have questions in committee in the upper house in relation to how the fees and levies will be appropriately charged to commodity groups. The reason for this is that there is a differing level of levies or fees that are charged by commodity groups with regard to their respective perceived risk and the cost of regulation.
However, this will change in the future given that lab-grown meat is included in this legislation as being regulated by Safe Food Victoria, with the specific regulations destined to be outlined in the future. Currently, because this industry is not regulated, they are paying zero levies, so they are not contributing to the regulatory cost of any body. That needs to be resolved as soon as possible, but the pathway towards ensuring a fair system has to be fair.
I do not underestimate that this will be a challenge to undertake, because there will be a fear that fees and levies will increase in certain areas. Of course we know that increased fees and levies, otherwise known as taxes, on our producers do have a huge impact in pushing up the cost of food, particularly when we are facing so many challenges in relation to cost-of-living pressures. It is costing more to fill up your car or your tractor, it is costing much more for people to fill up their trucks and it is costing a lot more to fill up trains. It is costing a lot more to fill up everything. Everyone is feeling the pinch of the cost of living.
We cannot also have our growers facing an increased charge in relation to regulation, because it will be passed on to their produce. It will be passed on to the people who purchase food in Victorian supermarkets. I urge the government to proceed with caution when it comes to reviewing the fee strategy. I understand the challenges that will be involved in that, but please ensure that it is fair above all else.
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. We need to make sure that everybody pays their fair share when it comes to regulation.
I would like to think that there will be lower fees and charges out of this at the end of the day. That should be something that the government seeks to do. It is certainly something that has not yet been committed to or articulated by the government. I urge the minister to work towards trying to deliver that for every grower across the state.
As I have touched on, there are aspects within this legislation that relate to transparency and reporting. One thing in particular that stood out to me during the bill briefing was that this bill does not require any detailed reporting on regulatory outcomes. Given the context of the type of work that will be undertaken by Safe Food Victoria, it would be appreciated if that was outlined.
Whether it belongs in legislation or not can be articulated during the committee stage in the upper house – we will work through that with the minister, or we will attempt to do so. People are looking for understanding and to have confidence that Safe Food Victoria is doing its job and doing it well. Information like the number of inspections, compliance actions, food safety incidents, industry fees collected and foodborne illness trends is something that the Victorian community expects and the industry appreciates because it does assist them in understanding their risks and where they need to focus their efforts in being good producers and good business operators.
Transparency and accountability are very important, so we will be pursuing that and I will be working with the minister and her office through the passage of this legislation to the upper house. We are open to conversations around any of these suggestions on how the legislation can be improved. We are interested to work with government to ensure we have a better outcome for every food grower across this state and ensure that for the food that is consumed by Victorians people have confidence that it will be highly nutritious, it will be safe, they will not get sick if they have it and there will not be any contamination.
I am hopeful that we can work through some of these amendments to support our growers in doing that. There was an aspect within the legislation that I raised in that this piece of legislation, given it is such a vast change to the regulation of food in this state, does not include a statutory review timeframe. That is quite unusual when there are such significant changes. I accept and acknowledge that this is phase 1 of a broader intent to review and consolidate food safety regulation in Victoria.
However, I think that taking a commitment and promise that this is only phase 1 is insufficient when it comes to how important the regulation and confidence in food safety is for our markets.
I have touched on the domestic market of course – the people in Victoria having confidence that our food is safe – but we also need to have confidence to continue to be able to access our export markets. We cannot have such an important body as Safe Food Victoria have pitfalls on the way through or have any issues that are not addressed appropriately and that threaten the opportunity for Victorian growers to access export markets.
For that reason, while I do not think it was necessarily an oversight – I think it was confidence that there would be a phase 2, but given there is no confidence really in some things and, I hate to say it, no-one really believes anything a politician says, to be honest –we certainly should have some built-in legislative supports around that.
We should have legislative supports, and that is why we have it in legislation, because we need to make sure there is a fallback and a backbone. I urge the government – this is a very straightforward request for an amendment – to include a statutory review date of two or three years. I do not really mind when it is, but can we have a set down date that this is reviewed in the event that phase 2 never comes. I know there is intent to bring in phase 2, but let us just make sure we get it right the first time.
Another aspect which I have touched on broadly in relation to this legislation is it does include the incorporation of lab-grown meat. This is specifically in relation to being included in the remit of Safe Food Victoria. This is an area which is not currently covered by regulation; it is effectively unregulated. It becomes very complex. We know of the issue with Cocobella, where it was covered eventually by Dairy Food Safety Victoria because that company undertook dairy production on a larger scale than its plant production. However, it really did show the glaring need to have a specific area around lab-grown meats but also plant-based beverages.
In relation to that there are some concerns within the community as to when they will be purchasing lab-grown meat or when they purchase milk whether it is real milk or not milk. We will also be seeking a number of amendments in relation to consumer transparency and consumer choice to make sure that consumers are not misled – that when packaging includes certain terms around meat or terms that are highly related to meat, people understand that it is actually a plant-based product, to ensure that consumers know what the predominant protein is in that product and to ensure that people can make an informed choice when they purchase food.
Further to that, we will be seeking amendment to clarify the use of the term ‘milk’ in the sale of certain products. This is something that has been picked up in other parts of the world where there is clarity and regulation around the use of the term ‘milk’. This is very important because we need to ensure that there is protection as well of our vital dairy industry, that we do ensure that dairy products are seen as having a space in the market and that they are not to be replaced by plant-based beverages.
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. We will be seeking also to ensure that there is consumer transparency around lab-grown meat. There will be people in the community who want to make an informed choice when they purchase lab-grown meat. That may be because it is a conscientious choice to choose lab-grown meat for whatever reason. It may be a conscientious decision that they do not want to consume lab-grown meat – they may choose to avoid that product.
But I think that is something that the consumer can only make an informed choice about if they can see that information in front of them, and so we will be seeking a series of amendments in that regard.
We will be seeking amendments that include mandatory plant-based disclosures and labgrown meat disclosures, we will include a clause regarding misleading descriptor prohibition and we will further seek an amendment in regard to consumer transparency requirements. We need to ensure that people understand when meat is meat and when it is not. We need to ensure that people understand when milk is milk and when it is not. This is not downplaying these products. 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. That is something that needs to be ensured.
It is very pleasing to hear some banter has been started across the chamber. Maybe there are other members of this chamber who share my views around the use of the terms ‘meat’ and ‘milk’ and other products that are marketed in a very deliberate way. I have had this conversation with many producers over the years. I do not know why you would want to market something as being flavoured like a meat when it is clearly a veggie patty. I love veggie patties, they are fabulous, but 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. I do not understand it, but I know some do. I know that some people do seek that, but let us make an informed decision about it and just say it like it is. Why shouldn’t we protect our consumers? Why shouldn’t we be protecting our industries, which have fought hard to create a reputation for their own market around the reputation of good Victorian meat, around the protection of Victorian-grown milk and what our dairy producers do to look after their cows and make sure they have a high-quality product on our supermarket shelves? This is what we should be seeing.
We will be seeking those amendments in the Legislative Council. I realise this has been a broad-ranging debate, as is often the case when it is legislation brought through the house which is quite significant. It is a significant piece of legislation. Creating a new entity comes with pitfalls and challenges, and I trust that the minister and her representation here today can understand that we are seeking to ensure that there is a positive outcome for our growers and our producers across this state.
Agriculture is facing many challenges at this time. I have gone into the cost of fuel as being a big challenge in how we actually proceed with the upcoming sowing season in particular and how our livestock commodities and dairy commodities manage the input costs in relation to access to fuel, how we can mix food and how we can protect and ensure animal welfare outcomes are continued in this fuel shortage crisis, but we need to make sure that we do not lump too much on people at once.
I would urge the government to consider our comments today. I am more than happy to meet further with the minister and her office to try and put forward the views of the sector, of the stakeholders and particularly of our growers in relation to the shortfalls of this legislation.
We accept that there may be an opportunity to do things better to ensure there is a one-stop shop, particularly when there are so many councils across the state – 79 councils – that groups have to work with if there is a recall. We need to make sure that it is a streamlined process, but we do not want it to get sunk into the bureaucracy of having a lumping, heaving, heavy bureaucratic entity that cannot do its job appropriately and cannot deliver positive outcomes to support our food sector in Victoria.
We need to ensure that there is some level of confidence that this will actually improve regulation and cut red tape but also cut the cost burden, the cost inputs for our growers in Victoria, to give them a head start, because they are competing against growers not just from interstate but from overseas as well. Let us support our Victorian growers and put them first at every step of the way.
There is a real opportunity for the government to work with the Nationals and Liberals to deliver a strong set of amendments to this legislation so that when it passes the other place, or is returned to this chamber, the sector and our growers have confidence that Safe Food Victoria will deliver real outcomes for them.
In regard to our amendments in regard to the labelling and use of ‘meat’ and meat-related terms and ‘milk’ and milk-related terms – of course ensuring that there is a place for consumer transparency in regard to lab-grown meat, these novel approaches to foods – we need to ensure we have got the opportunity for the consumer to make an informed choice, whether it be to purchase that product deliberately or to avoid that product.
It is the right of every consumer to be able to have that choice, but it is not currently clear. It has a flow-on effect to our kids, to understand where their food comes from, which is an ongoing challenge. There are even children growing up in my community who have never been onto a farm, so you can be in regional Victoria and never have set foot on a farm. But in my view it is very important people know where their food comes from.
By the government supporting amendments which improve that transparency and improve consumer choice they can support the industries that are targeting those areas that want to get into a market where there is perhaps further consumption of either plant-based products or the choice to have lab-grown meats and those types of products. They should be able to do so, but we can support them by supporting amendments and making sure we have legislation which makes those choices very, very clear.
I thank all of the stakeholders who have provided input to this legislation. I thank the minister’s office and the minister, who are open always to comments that I can contribute, whether they are good, bad or otherwise. I particularly appreciate the input from the stakeholders. It is a difficult time for agriculture, and there are many pressures and distractions across the state, particularly at the moment, the highest being access to fuel.
But when you are a farmer and you are looking at some of the other changes across the state, whether it is the emergency services tax or the import of large-scale energy infrastructure and renewables, whether it is the changing use of land, whether it is urban sprawl, whether it is mining on land or whether it is the large-scale solar farms which are rolling out or wind farms, you feel like you are getting it from every single angle.
There is an opportunity here to make sure that they are supported by the Labor government, to make sure that we can deliver for our growers, because thank God for our farmers. Thank God for our freight industry. We would not have any food on our shelves without them.
Again I reiterate to the government in relation to the fuel crisis that all Victorians are facing at the moment: please step up. Please make sure that we have an allocation of fuel for our growers in particular but also the agricultural industry, all industry that relies on fuels and our freight network, our freight friends. Let us make sure we keep Victoria moving, keep Victoria growing, because we know that with no fuel, we have no food.