Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The motion addresses two issues. The first is the matter of clear food labelling—a matter which I have had a longstanding interest in. The second is the preservation of tropical wildlife, which in so many cases and in so many parts of the world is increasingly under threat of extinction—again, a matter that I have talked about in this place on other occasions. Both are important matters and need to be addressed. Perhaps we should have focused on one at a time so that we could have spent more time talking about each one individually but, nevertheless, I am happy to speak on this motion.

Some years ago—in fact, in 2009—there was an inquiry into food labelling in this country, led by Dr Neal Blewett, and it handed down its findings in 2011. There were some 61 recommendations from that inquiry, and one of them specifically talked about some of the labelling issues that are relevant to this motion.

I not only looked at that inquiry, at the time—and, perhaps, agitated for it—but also was part of a House committee that looked at the country-of-origin food labelling issue only a couple of years ago. So I am well aware of the difficulties associated with changing the labelling scheme in this country, the resistance that would be met if you tried to go too far and, in some cases, the legitimacy of that resistance. But I am also aware that it has been done better in other countries. If we can take a leaf out of what has happened in other countries, in making labelling a lot clearer, in respect to the nutritional value of the foods that are being consumed, that will make an immense difference to the health outcomes of people in this country. Clearer labelling is one of the things that is very much in demand when you speak to consumers out there.

As the member for La Trobe quite rightly pointed out, there is a direct link between good nutrition and health outcomes. Not surprisingly, a poll conducted by UMR Research indicates that 84 per cent of Australians support a change to the labelling structures that we have in this country. In particular, when I look at the Labelling Logic review of Dr Neal Blewett, recommendation 12 states:

That where sugars, fats or vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the terms 'added sugars' and 'added fats' and/or 'added vegetable oils' be used in the ingredient list as the generic term, followed by a bracketed list …

of added sugars, added fats or added vegetable oils. The bracketed list would identify the specific ingredient added. And that is what is important, from a health point of view. Indeed, I have just met with some people in respect to allergies, and they will need to know if they might have an allergy to a particular food.

It seems that years later many of the recommendations from that initial Blewett inquiry are still to be fully implemented. Yet we know that in Australia over 60 per cent of the population are overweight and around a quarter of the population are obese. So there are some direct costs associated with good nutritional advice that arises when you have much better labelling. There have even been discussions in this place and overseas about adding a sugar tax to products that have a high sugar level within them, in order to try and reduce sugar consumption for the very same countries. Again, I note that other countries have been able to make some progress.

One of the concerns I have about all of the food labelling issues that we deal with under the FSANZ process—a process whereby we have the six states and two territories of Australia, and New Zealand—is all having to come to an agreement, a consensus. It is a cumbersome process. Perhaps it is time, if nothing else, we looked at that structure so that we can make the process much easier when it comes to doing what we know and what everyone else knows is common sense.

The last point I want to touch on, very briefly, and the member for La Trobe touched on it, is one of the issues associated with forest clearing in the tropics: the issue of pollution. I have seen it first-hand. It lasts, at times, for months at a time and is something that nobody should be subjected to, particularly those countries that surround the areas where the burning is taking place. They have to endure it for weeks and months at a time, at the expense of their health.

See this speech in context