Mathers Mojo; Tisch LindsayMOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a short call on this bill. I was not part of the select committee process so I have not been party to the details of submissions and arguments and discussions. However I am pleased that we are supporting the bill because at the end of the day we all share a common concern and drive to ensure the safety of the food that we consume and this bill goes some way to improving that.It is worthwhile thinking about you know—because food is something that we all eat and we all care about—along with some of the core principles around the food that we eat. For the Green Party I think they fall into two main categories. Firstly there is the whole category of the consumer's right to know: to know what it is they are eating—what the ingredients are—and also where it comes from. These are two very fundamental aspects about our food that we want to know. The other thing that the consumer is often really concerned about is whether we can trust that the food that we are eating is safe. Can we trust that the regulatory regime is strong enough and robust enough to ensure that our food is safe for consumption?But in addition to that around the whole trust issue is the trust that the labelling is honest—that the food is what is says it will be but also that if something is required to be labelled that information is actually on the product. We have you know regulations and requirements for food to be labelled with the GE ingredients or for irradiation. The consumers expect that to be enforced. It goes to the heart of trust in the food regulatory system that if we do have a regulation that does require something to be labelled we expect that to be monitored and we expect that to be enforced. So it is absolutely concerning that GE and irradiated foods have not been—the regulations around them have not been monitored or enforced since 2003. We would certainly like to see that rectified with this bill in the Committee stage with the amendment that my colleague Steffan Browning is putting forward. Just as the compliances and the processes that are being provided for in this bill are all about meeting consumer trust in the process particularly in our overseas market so we have to have trust that the existing regulations are being monitored and enforced. All these elements fit together.I share the concern around the fact that at the select committee stage the committee seemed to weaken the provision for having the most up-to-date plans available. With modern technology within the digital age really any business that is serious about food production should be able to do so quickly and easily through digital formats to ensure that the most up-to-date plans are available to the verification agencies. In some ways it seems to be locked in an old way of approach.Finally I just want to echo the points that have been raised by several speakers notably Damien and Prosser and so on around small artisan cheese companies. It is absolutely really important that we can adapt the bill to ensure that the compliance costs are not disproportionate to the risk involved. When the compliance costs and the level of testing required are going to cost up to 40 percent of their income something needs to be done. We are talking about very small-scale producers so therefore—the risk is lower for small-scale producers because the risk is related to the scale of the production and how many people are going to actually be consuming this cheese. It is also worthwhile realising that of course the comparable product imported does not have to meet the same level of testing. Therefore why are we expecting our domestic cheeses to be at a higher level than imported cheese? We are hoping that that will be resolved. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Michael Wood—5 minutes.