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

As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry which inquired into food labelling only two years ago, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. As a result of the work of that committee and some subsequent events which followed, the government did make some changes to country of origin labelling which I welcome. Those changes in essence came into effect from 1 July 2016, and I understand that there will be a transition period for about two years whilst the changes take effect. Under those changes, I believe, there will be some improvements made to consumers' ability to understand where food is coming from, particularly with the labelling itself being changed and with the use of the Kangaroo, the triangle and the bar graph, which shows how much of the food is actually produced or made here in Australia. Those are indeed welcome changes.

The inquiry followed an earlier inquiry carried out by Dr Neal Blewett that was commissioned under a Labor government back in 2011 and his report came up with, from memory, over 60 recommendations which went to the very issues that many members have been speaking about today on this legislation.

One of the issues that is constantly debated and discussed out in the community is the fact that we could have a clearer and better to understand food labelling system in Australia. Having spent months speaking to people from around Australia as part of the committee, I accept that it is not always that simple and that easy to change the labelling system as people would sometimes have us believe. Indeed, having listened to many of the arguments both for and against the changes that were made by the government and which start in 2016, I understand the complexities and the difficulties associated with food labelling laws, not just in this country but indeed around the world.

I very much acknowledge that when America tried to do something similar with their beef and pork some three or four years ago, they were taken to that WTO court in breach of WTO agreements they had entered into with both Canada and Mexico, which highlighted that the issue of food labelling and the questions that need to be resolved are not solely questions for each individual country but in fact do have and can have implications for trade agreements that have been entered into in good faith by countries over the years.

I believe it is of concern that any country—and I hope Australia does not find itself in a similar situation to America—can be taken to court over trying to protect its own interests as America was trying to do with its own food labelling. It seems to me that any government entering into an agreement that would mean Australia was no longer in control of the labelling that it legislates for products here in Australia would be a retrograde step. I recall that, when we were discussing this issue in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, compliance with World Trade Organization obligations and any free trade agreements that we had entered into was one of the possible stumbling blocks about Australia changing its own labelling laws. But, in the end, the government of the day found ways of doing that, and I believe we have come to the right decision with respect to it.

Food labelling is an important issue for Australians. It is important to Australian food producers because it can affect their viability. It is important to consumers who want to know where their food comes from. And it is vitally important to consumers who, for health reasons, need to know what they are consuming. I say that with a degree of concern, because knowing what they are consuming goes to the heart of consumers' fears about food, because many Australians are allergic to a particular type of food. According to the latest ABS figures, almost four million Australians avoid a food because of allergy or intolerance to it. Of those, about 560,000 are children aged between two and 18 years. Allergic reactions can be traumatic to both the person affected and to other family members. In the worst-case scenarios—although not often in Australia—death can result. Indeed, there was a front-page newspaper story about a death related to a food allergy only last week. So, for the four million people in Australia and their families, knowing what is in food is indeed vital, and they need to be confident about the information on the labels. Not surprisingly, consumer information on food packaging is important and has been a priority issue for people for many years in this country.

Whilst this legislation is heading in the right direction, I believe that we can do more. This legislation amends the provisions relating to the safe harbour of food labelling and makes those provisions consistent with the new laws that came into effect on 1 July this year. It is clear that the 'Australian made' and 'Australian produced' tags provide a marketing advantage. If they did not, they would not have been so widely abused prior to certain laws being in place. The growers know that, the food processors know that, the resellers know that, the overseas food importers know that and the unethical food industry operators also know that.

I want to make some other comments about the unethical food industry if time permits, but I will say that dishonest claims about food origins are often made with respect to both the food sold in Australia and the food sold overseas. In fact, I suspect the dishonesty is probably more prevalent overseas, where food that may not be Australian is marketed as being Australian because that adds value to it. I accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in overseas jurisdictions, but I do not accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in the Australian market, and that is perhaps where this legislation is particularly focused.

One of my concerns is that, whilst we have labels, there is little oversight to ensure that the labels are actually correct. There is little oversight to ensure that the ingredients and contents of a food match what is said on the label. Generally it is only when a rival supplier raises a concern or puts in a formal complaint about a food that does not match up to the labelling on it that it is exposed, and then the relevant authorities step in. So it seems that one thing we could do better in this country with respect to food sales is not simply to change the labelling system but to make sure that the labelling system is also provided with some oversight and there are some compliance mechanisms in place that would give consumers the confidence to know that what is on the label is actually also in the food.

The situation is even more problematic with respect to processed food. After all, if processed food contains certain ingredients that are claimed to come from Australia, once the food is processed it is almost impossible to prove that the ingredients indeed do come from Australia and not from another country. So there has to be some degree of reliance on the honesty of the manufacturer. But nevertheless the issue remains that it is difficult and problematic to be guaranteed that the food sources are where the label claims they are. I think we could do better. I hope that in future there might be other ways of us being able to do that.

I want to turn for a moment to Labor's amendment with respect to this legislation, and that is about the consumption of seafood in this country. One of the matters that was raised with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry when we were inquiring into food labelling was the need to ensure that all seafood that is sold in Australia is also properly labelled. While Australian consumers have some certainty about seafood they consume, there are some exemptions to that with respect to seafood sold at supermarkets and fresh fish shops. It has to have country-of-origin labelling, but the exemption is for cooked and preprepared seafood. If you buy fresh fish from a supermarket or a fresh fish shop, it should be labelled, and consumers should know where it comes from. If, however, you go into a restaurant or a takeaway food shop and buy cooked or preprepared seafood, then you do not know where that fish comes from. The effect of the exemption is that restaurants and cafes do not have to label the seafood they sell. That is a fairly serious matter, and I will come to that in just a moment, but one of the objections raised at the time by restaurant people across Australia was that it would become too difficult to correctly label where seafood comes from.

In 2006, the Northern Territory brought in their own laws, requiring cooked and pre-prepared fish to also be labelled, and I understand that New South Wales now plans to do the same. My understanding is that the Northern Territory's experience, which has now been in place for nearly 10 years, has showed that it has worked very well. Indeed, it probably increased sales of restaurant fish, because the consumers were more than happy to buy the fish if they knew where it came from. That is what we were told from people who made submissions to the committee's inquiry. Conversely, the justification for the exemption that currently exists appears to have little substance, given that the system has now worked successfully in the Northern Territory and New South Wales, as I understand, is about to do the same.

It has been estimated that about 40 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia is consumed in a restaurant setting. When consumers go into a restaurant most of them, according to the surveys, believe they are being served Australian fish. It is also estimated that 70 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia—about 370,000 tonnes—is imported. So, whilst Australian consumers believe that, when they go into a restaurant or a cafe, they are most likely to be served Australian fish, the reality is that it is not Australian fish. It would offer a huge growth opportunity for the Australian fish industry if consumers knew that they were going to be getting Australian fish. It would clearly make a difference, as the experience in the Northern Territory has already shown.

That is where we get back to the proposition that properly labelling food is good for producers in this country. The reason that Australian products—not just food but Australian products broadly—are often labelled as being made or produced in Australia is that consumers around the world generally accept that we have good standards here in Australia. I have spoken to people who have spent time overseas. Indeed, I spoke to one person who had spent several years in another country—which I will not name. He was very familiar with the way food was produced in that country and he was also very concerned with the way the food was produced in that country in terms of the how it was grown, the chemicals and the products used to grow it and then process it.

Those concerns equally resonate with people I speak to about the food that we consume in this country. If people know that the food is genuine Australian food, they are more likely to buy it—I always look for the 'Australian made' or the 'Australian produced' tag on products that I buy, if it is at all possible—and that in turn would create more demand for the Australian product. And, if we can create more demand for the Australian product, it is definitely good for Australian manufacturers, Australian producers, Australian growers and Australian industry generally, because there are very large flow-on effects from the food industry to a whole range of other industries. So it is good for the consumer; it is good for the economy; and it is good for the country. With those comments, as I said from the outset, Labor will be supporting this legislation, albeit that we would like to see more done with the fish sales in this country.

See this speech in context