Division
Stephen Jones by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule. Labor's amendments, modest but important, delete the proposed changes within the bill to the composition of the board. If the amendments are accepted, the board will continue in its current composition—finely balanced and independent. If you want a reason why it is necessary to retain the independence of the board, you need look no further than the contribution from the member for Lyons. He was passionate but he was ill informed. He criticised the food standards authority, and the unknown bureaucrats who work within the organisation, for knocking off his passionate support—and that of the people he presumably represents—for cannabis which is produced as a food product. I can inform the member for Lyons and the House that the board of FSANZ, and indeed the expert bodies, have referred to the ministerial council propositions which would authorise the production and sale of cannabis for food products within Australia. It was the ministerial council which knocked off this proposal. And that in a nutshell demonstrates the importance of having a proper tension between experts and elected politicians who sit on the ministerial council as opposed to the scientists, the health experts and the industry experts who sit on the board. That demonstrates in a nutshell why that is necessary, because were it not for the scientific expertise and the health expertise of the people on the board that proposition would never have got to the ministerial council. It would have been killed before it got there. It proves in a nutshell why we need to have independent expertise across a range of areas not subject to the appointment and discretion of the minister, whoever he or she may be from day to day. We argue that the current arrangements are serving us well. The assistant minister
House of Representatives, 2015-10-14. negative: ayes 43, noes 78.
Question
Stephen Jones by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item. (2) Schedule 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 26 (line 13), omit the Schedule. Labor's amendments, modest but important, delete the proposed changes within the bill to the composition of the board. If the amendments are accepted, the board will continue in its current composition—finely balanced and independent. If you want a reason why it is necessary to retain the independence of the board, you need look no further than the contribution from the member for Lyons. He was passionate but he was ill informed. He criticised the food standards authority, and the unknown bureaucrats who work within the organisation, for knocking off his passionate support—and that of the people he presumably represents—for cannabis which is produced as a food product. I can inform the member for Lyons and the House that the board of FSANZ, and indeed the expert bodies, have referred to the ministerial council propositions which would authorise the production and sale of cannabis for food products within Australia. It was the ministerial council which knocked off this proposal. And that in a nutshell demonstrates the importance of having a proper tension between experts and elected politicians who sit on the ministerial council as opposed to the scientists, the health experts and the industry experts who sit on the board. That demonstrates in a nutshell why that is necessary, because were it not for the scientific expertise and the health expertise of the people on the board that proposition would never have got to the ministerial council. It would have been killed before it got there. It proves in a nutshell why we need to have independent expertise across a range of areas not subject to the appointment and discretion of the minister, whoever he or she may be from day to day. We argue that the current arrangements are serving us well. The assistant minister
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.