Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. This is a good news bill. If you are a consumer like me, you most likely read food packaging to better understand where the product and its ingredients originate. I want to identify the origins of the product and ingredients so I can use this information to help make an informed decision to support local produce. Too often, consumers are faced with meaningless claims on labels like, 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This probably means that the food may have been only minimally processed, packaged, sliced or canned in Australia.

As consumers, we assume that businesses undertake stringent tests to attain and illustrate their 'made in' status on their products. However, as a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan, I must also acknowledge that these tests are often unnecessarily burdensome, complex and costly.

I spoke in this House back in 2011 on this very issue—an issue that affects all conscientious consumers. In fact, at the time, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council had released the Blewett report, which sought the extension of country-of-origin laws to include that, for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific, country-of-origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components, excluding water, be developed. However, those sitting opposite at the time did not support this recommendation because it was all too hard.

This bill, however, implements part of the coalition government's country-of-origin labelling reforms—reforms that benefit both consumers and businesses. Basically put, this bill will simplify country-of-origin labelling for consumers. It will simplify and clarify the safe-harbour provisions within the Australian Consumer Law. In doing so, this bill will ensure that minor processes, like packaging and canning, do not justify 'made in' claims.

As the daughter of a farmer, like many of my constituents and, indeed, colleagues in this place I support Australian farmers. But to do this, we want to know whether the food we buy is from Australia or elsewhere, and if it was made or merely packaged here. We really want to know how much of it was grown here by our farmers. The mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirements for food will now be enhanced and moved from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law.

We have all seen the well-known kangaroo-in-a-triangle symbol. Under the new information standard, this symbol will be required on many foods found on retail shelves around Australia, identifying those that were grown, produced or made in Australia. This bill will see reforms that will give Australian consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they purchase.

However, I would like to point out that these reforms do not seek to impose excessive burdens on businesses to conform to country-of-origin laws. These reforms will not only provide further consistency of labelling for consumers but also support businesses to use terms like 'made in' and 'product of' with greater certainty. Businesses will be less inclined to make those meaningless origin claims like 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' that currently confuse consumers.

As a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan and, indeed, a former small business owner myself, I understand firsthand the impact that regulatory burden has on their operations. I mentioned before the excessive red tape of complex production cost tests that are also difficult to administer. These tests strain businesses with unnecessary regulatory burden. Most notably, this amendment removes the production cost test and simplifies the testing regime used to justify country-of-origin claims by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means. Instead, businesses in my electorate and around Australia will now find it easier to make reliable country-of-origin representations through a clarified substantial transformation test.

And the good news does not end there. In present value terms, the removal of the production cost test will realise total savings of $49 million per year or an enormous $550 million over 20 years for businesses. Given that one of the themes of this reform is simplicity, it is quite clear that these savings will allow businesses to better focus on their core activities, invest in their future and create jobs. Through interaction with my local chambers of commerce and business owners, I hear firsthand that these beneficial reforms will be welcomed.

The government is also working with industry to digitise food product information in order to better position consumers and businesses in the future. These are reforms that consumers and businesses want.

This is yet another way that the coalition government is supporting business and taking into account the voices of consumers in Australia. It is important that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity to ensure the best possible outcomes for consumers and businesses alike. I congratulate the Turnbull government for listening to the issues and concerns of Australian consumers and businesses regarding this key issue. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context