Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before continuing on in my remarks in relation to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, I also pay tribute to and recognise the wonderful advocacy efforts of all of those Indigenous Australians in relation to the No More campaign.

This time 12 months ago, I was privileged to be touring through remote Aboriginal communities in the north-west of Western Australia, undertaking a fight for justice on behalf of plaintiffs, who were Aboriginal Australians who had been the victims of road trauma, often in circumstances through no fault of their own. In the course of the mediation conference tours that started as far north as Kununurra and Wyndham and Junee through the Kimberley south to Broome, I was very privileged to be invited into numerous communities along the way. I was struck by the resilience, dignity and determination of Aboriginal Australians who are fighting incredible battles that I can barely comprehend—being as close as I am to the services that I am so lucky enough to have access to.

It is an incredibly challenging environment and I would as honoured to be able to play a very small part in ensuring that Aboriginal Australians get justice in the context of compensation claims and access to the courts. I pay tribute to those families and the men and women that I represented. I understand that there are similar informal conference tours happening at the moment. To those mums and dads and kids who I was lucky enough to represent in my old life before making the transition to this place, I want to pass on the message that my transition here does not diminish my voracious appetite to make sure that the quest for a just outcome in the context of Aboriginal communities prevails.

Returning to this bill, my previous remarks went to the heart of the bill in the context of our support for the country-of-origin matters and notes that the bill also governs the use of country-of-origin marks such as the 'made in Australia' gold kangaroo in a green triangle. It defines the idea of a good being substantially transformed. It makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product of' or 'grown in' labels. It also mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient irrespective of the actual origin of the water. Whilst the steps taken as reflected in this bill are not perfect, what they do do is indicate country of origin for imported ingredients, to take an example. These requirements are certainly a constructive and good step forward.

Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainly for businesses, particularly Australian food manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australia consumer law are aligned with the new country-of-origin requirements. More importantly, this new regime will make it easier for consumers when making decisions about what groceries to buy for their families to identify and then purchase locally-produced products.

I now turn to the amendment as circulated in my name in this matter. I do not believe it would be reaching too far to say that most Australians want to buy seafood that is sourced from local and sustainable fisheries. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that almost 75 per cent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported, often unbeknowns, to those who are purchasing the seafood. Globally, we have seen a decline in fishstocks due to overfishing and the destruction of natural habitats.

But Australians currently have few options if they want to ensure they are eating local, sustainable seafood. This is not just a concern from a sustainability point of view; it is also relevant to people seeking to make healthy decisions. Some species of fish and shark carry high levels of mercury but, due to the current lack of labelling requirements, it is hard to know what you are eating. Without an effective and well-regulated seafood labelling scheme, Australians cannot have any confidence that the seafood they are eating is local or sustainable or even that it is what they paid for. It is an outcome that is suboptimal both for Australian consumers and for our local fisheries. Quite frankly, Australian consumers deserve better.

This amendment calls on the government to bring forward regulations that will apply a country-of-origin labelling regime to the sale of seafood in the food services industry—that is, at restaurants, cafes and fish-and-chip shops. And it is also consistent with Labor's platform and our dedication towards giving consumers more, rather than less, information about the products they are seeking to purchase.

A scheme for seafood country-of-origin labelling in the food services industry has been in place in the Northern Territory for many years. We know that it works. It is very successful and should serve as a model for a regime that could be rolled out all across the country. Interestingly, where the consumers of the Northern Territory are given the choice between local and imported seafood, at their local chippie for instance, they have been shown to be, by a big margin, willing to pay more for locally sourced fish. But consumers elsewhere do not have access to that information. I do not think it is unreasonable for Australian consumers to expect to know where their seafood comes from. I will move the amendment as circulated in my name and, for the sake of completeness, I will read the amendment. I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) widespread community concern around seafood labelling;

(b) that Australian consumers want to know where their food originates; and

(c) the specific circumstances of seafood as a fresh food; and

(2) calls on the Government to act to improve country of origin labelling for fresh, cooked and pre-prepared seafood sold in the food services industry".

I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context