Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Murray. I know she is passionate about this subject and it is very close to her heart. It gives me an opportunity to speak about horticulture and also the vegetable industry. An industry in horticulture, which is growing and expanding in my area of the world, is cherries, raspberries and strawberries that are being grown in conjunction with growers in Queensland so that the seasons can be covered the year round.

Both the small fruits and the vegetables are iconic foods in Tasmania. We have always had a very big vegetable industry, and that is expanding somewhat with our new irrigation schemes and growing out. But of course, having a business model, having ways of marketing and making sure we can continue to expand, are some of the challenges. We must hang on to all these opportunities and find ways that we can feed them into the markets.

There are problems and there are barriers. Perhaps the most pressing of these are the proper labelling of product, and I notice in Tasmania that some legislation is being proposed to put simpler food explanation labels on products. That gives a larger and simpler explanation of the nutrition content and it would only take another small box to say it was grown and processed in Tasmania, in Australia, or half the label could say that these are peas from Tasmania. Somehow that seems to be a rather difficult thing to achieve.

At the moment, labels on tins tend to not state where the products were sourced, only what processing has taken place in Australia. I have often checked tins of fruit and vegetables that proudly boast of being an Australian product and then read the small print to find that it is a blend or that it is grown overseas and canned in Australia. There is always the reserve of using an Australian product but we reserve the right to source anywhere in the world. Of course that comes down to the business models that the retail sector of Australia uses, and the retail sector's business model is to put a product on their shelves sourced from anywhere in the world. If the price is right, they will shelve it.

Australian products with a simple, local label that says that this is an Australian product seem to be opposed at any cost. They seem to want to oppose that, and we see through their organisations they seem to do that all the time. As I said, it does not seem to be possible for Tasmanian peas to be labelled 'Tasmanian peas: product of Australia'. Saying, 'This is a Tasmanian product,' does not seem to take up half the packet of peas. We have a reputation for growing really good product. We have been growing peas in Tasmania for a long, long time. So you get to be very cynical about what some people's business models are and how they impose those on the consumers and the producers. I see that they are now opposing health labelling reforms as well, because it does not fit into their business models. There will be all sorts of reasons found, but none of them will be for a healthier nation, and that is a very sad process.

While I agree with a number of aspects of this motion, I certainly do not think that we should get into these arguments that manufacturing should not be supported and that we can only do something about agriculture if we stop supporting manufacturing. We can have manufacturing and agriculture, and we need both of them in our nation. So I do not think that we should set up these false arguments and run those things; I do not think it serves our nation very well. We do need a good, thriving agriculture sector and horticulture sector. So there are a number of aspects of this motion that I do not support.

Certainly the increased costs of doing business affect the survival of these industries, but it is more the lack of accurate labelling and proper descriptive labelling that can allow products to be dumped in Australia. That is a true thing, and we need to explore that. I would agree with an immediate and comprehensive antidumping investigation in respect of all fruits and vegetables and also fish and fish products coming into the country. I believe that there is a strong chance that many of these products are being dumped because of the ability to wander through our labelling laws and through some of the other arrangements we may have with some of the connections in food labelling and food standards. We need to focus on those things.

I have been extremely keen to see that fresh food is not subject to travelling over long distances. I do not think people will want that in the future, and I have some sympathy with the Slow Food movement, being a bit of a foodie myself. Slow Food opposes the standardisation of taste and culture and the unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial agriculture. The association believes in the recognition of strong connections between plate, planet, people and culture. Slow Food's approach to agriculture, food production and preparation is based on the concept of food quality defined by three interconnecting principles: a good, fresh and wholesome seasonal diet that satisfies the senses and is part of our local culture; clean food production and consumption that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our own health; and fair, assessable prices for consumers and fair conditions and pay for small-scale producers. I do not think anybody could argue with that. While some of this can be seen as a bit trendy and a bit far-fetched, the principles of keeping one's food fresh and typical to a region and preventing it being moved over large distances may well be something that Australia needs to consider.

I also think that somebody's label from an actual, local region should not be manipulated when a company may be sold or broken up and that label is then taken and the product is made in some other area but they still put the label on it. You can just imagine if we made King Island cheese in Victoria. I do not think that would be a good idea, but I also do not think that it would be a recognition of what made that cheese originally. It is a great product. I have always had some feelings that these things need to be given some more consideration and we should give consideration to protecting a region's viability by protecting its labelling.

We can grow fantastic food, both animal and vegetable, in Australia, but, unless it is processed quickly and cleanly, a lot of food's value can be lost. So there is a lot of opportunity here, I believe, for us to think a bit differently from how we have in the past, and we can make some major gains. Hence my objection to live animal export, as I believe that we can kill and process animals more humanely, more cleanly and more healthily than anywhere or anyone overseas, if we understand the processing where product is grown and raised. Australia has a reputation for its safe and healthy product, and we should endeavour to promote that wherever we can in the world.

I have watched in horror, as many of us have, the nonsense that goes on with live animals being carted off and being badly handled when there is no need for that. We could actually replace a lot of opportunity in other parts of the world with chiller and freezing stores. I think we need to get that business model right and not just pay shippers and agents fees to do that. With any imports that can be gained we must value add. We must certainly promote Australia's healthy food and our eating experiences and we should not let supermarket shelves simply be filled up with overseas products. We should look at this dumping that is taking place throughout Australia. I support most of the motion but not quite all of it.

See this speech in context