RAW MILK

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question on the provision of raw milk to shareholders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yesterday, on FIVEaa, the minister stated her outrage that bottled milk provided to shareholders from their own cows was not labelled or stamped with a use-by date. When a person buys their share in a cow, they are provided with instructions on how to store and handle the milk, and when a person collects that milk it is fresh on the day and the document provided states clearly that when stored at 4º or below the milk will last for seven to 10 days. The minister also stated that FSANZ found that raw milk is too risky to allow distribution to the public. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why would bottles need to be labelled and dated when shareholders are already aware of the conditions of use of raw milk and the use-by date?

2. How does the minister explain the decision of FSANZ now allowing the sale of raw milk at the gate in New Zealand, with consumers allowed to bring their own containers? It seems good enough for New Zealand but not good enough for SA.

3. Will the minister make known the nature of the complaint brought against Moo View? Was it a consumer complaint or was it a trading competitor's complaint?

4. When Mark Tyler approached the authorities some four years ago to establish a monitoring and testing arrangement, was he ignored by the authorities then?

5. Why is the minister insisting this be now dragged through the court when in fact for four years this has been a non-issue for the department?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:08): The first thing I need to say in providing answers is that this is subject to further investigation and likely prosecution, so therefore I am somewhat limited in terms of the sorts of details I can discuss. I am happy to talk about general principles, but there are details that I cannot address.

I find it astounding. I cannot believe that the Hon. Ann Bressington could be so irresponsible as to condone these alleged actions. As I reported in my ministerial statement yesterday, there are up to 600 shareholders—600 shareholders. This is not just a handful of neighbouring people. This is not just a small operation. We are talking about 600 shareholders. Allegedly some of this milk was being distributed without any labels, dropped off all over the place—here, there and everywhere.

The Hon. A. Bressington: What a load of rubbish! You are misleading this house.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Here, there and everywhere! Dropped off here, there and everywhere.

The Hon. A. Bressington: You are misleading this house.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bressington. You can make that allegation or make that charge.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: On a point of order. The minister is not accurately—

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: The point of order is relevance to the question.

The PRESIDENT: She is answering your question. That is not a point of order.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Oh, well, then she is misleading this house.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you've got the call.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not misleading this house at all. The truth hurts! The trouble is obviously hurting the Hon. Ann Bressington. She obviously is afraid of the answers I am giving.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, if you're not afraid, why don't you sit there and listen; if you're not afraid, why won't you listen to the answers?

The Hon. A. Bressington: Because you're not telling the truth.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Not only were allegedly some of these—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, just come to order. I can hear the accusations you are making the Hon. Ms Bressington, and they are very serious.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Yeah, absolutely.

The PRESIDENT: So don't make those accusations unless you can prove them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Put up or shut up.

The Hon. A. Bressington: You put up and shut up.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am putting up. I am about to get—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have lots to say, lots of facts—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, you can continue with your answer.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Oh, yes, I do so enthusiastically, Mr President.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Good.

The PRESIDENT: Without interjection, the Hon. Ms Bressington.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I said, allegedly some of this milk was distributed without any labelling whatsoever. We are looking at 600 shareholders with no control over the supply chain in terms of what bottle ends up where, very little control whatsoever. Is the Hon. Ann Bressington really saying that she condones a product that scientifically has been shown to be of risk to the health of particularly pregnant women? There is substantial evidence that shows that in some instances pregnant women have miscarried their babies as a result of drinking a raw milk product that was contaminated with certain pathogens—miscarried their babies.

So, no warning on the label, unlike in many other countries. Some of those countries that do accept the distribution of unpasteurised milk—not a lot, but some do (I am talking of developed countries, of course)—insist on quite rigorous restrictions around the distribution of unpasteurised milk, providing warnings on the label and particularly to pregnant women. So I just cannot believe that the Hon. Ann Bressington would condone putting pregnant women at risk—one of the groups. It is just totally irresponsible. It is just astounding that she would take such irresponsible actions. Not only that, there is no use-by date on the thing. We are talking about up to 600 shareholders. It is not just a bottle to one neighbour and a bottle to another.

As I said, with the alleged distribution that was occurring, it is very easy to lose control of that supply chain—who has access to it and where the milk ends up. It is very easy for the milk to change hands from one person who knows what is in the bottle to someone who does not know what is in the bottle and therefore is not in a position to make an informed choice about whether or not they are prepared to take the risk of drinking raw milk. As I said, there is plenty of scientific evidence on record (and I will not go into that now) that shows very clearly the potential high risk of drinking raw milk and raw milk products.

In terms of the nature of their complaint, the basis for our officers proceeding with this is because the advice we have received is that the supplier's activities are in breach of the legislation. His activities were outside the law, so that's why we have proceeded to take action.

In relation to FSANZ, it's an independent statutory authority, which has independently conducted recently, up until 2012, a four-year review of raw milk and raw milk products. Using the best science available at the time, consulting extensively with consumers—so, it's not just scientific evidence: they also considered a vast array of public submissions that represented different consumer points of view—they have made it quite clear that they believe that the risk is too high to be distributing raw milk and raw milk products. They have incorporated that into their standard. As members would know, these standards are then incorporated by jurisdictions into legislation or regulation to give them power. That's what has occurred here in South Australia and has done for many, many years, so there is not much that has changed, and every other state here in Australia does the same.

I just need to say that time flies. I did that ministerial statement on Tuesday. It wasn't yesterday; it just feels like it was yesterday. Just so I make sure that I correct the record and make sure that I don't mislead parliament, we just need to set the record straight.

So, that's why New Zealand may have chosen to incorporate that FSANZ standard in one way and Australia in another. Different countries approach this in different ways, and I accept that different countries have got different points of view on this. I used to drink raw milk when I was a child at a family friend's farm and nothing happened to me—I enjoyed it very much. I never used to wear a seatbelt when I was a child, either. You weren't required to then, we didn't understand the risk, and nothing happened to me either, in terms of seatbelts. Here I am, safe and sound.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I think the jury is out on that one.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you've got the call.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They're being very rude, Mr President—very unparliamentary. We set these standards for the public good in the general public interest. There is a cheap and easy alternative to taking that extra risk of drinking unpasteurised products. The risk is well documented and well evidenced and the solution is really simple: it's cheap, it's efficient and it's called pasteurisation. Work has also been done—and it was done by FSANZ as well, but it has been done in a number of quarters—where they've have looked at the impact pasteurisation has on the quality of milk and the nature—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Seven questions: that's a record low.

The PRESIDENT: If you stopped interjecting, you might get a few more questions in.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Rubbish.

The PRESIDENT: You want to call 'rubbish' on that? I now call on business of the day. Clerk.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Mr President, I haven't finished.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: No, thank you. What's the business of the day?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I had more, much more. I was just getting warmed up.

The PRESIDENT: Next question time, minister, you can go for the whole hour on one of our questions.