Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Perth for his contribution, although I do note that he was opining about the number of Tim Tams in a particular packet—he either does a lot of exercise or doesn't consume many Tim Tams! I'm not sure. I, on the other hand, self-evidently consume far too many Tim Tams or, alternatively, don't do enough exercise. But I'll let others make that determination.

I'm equally grateful to hear that the Labor Party supports what is an excellent piece of legislation—nay, an important piece of legislation and I would go so far as to say a critically important piece of legislation—the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill. At the heart of these reforms is ensuring that foods that are imported into this country are safe for consumption. There can be perhaps no more important motivation. Sadly, even in Australia, where we have a robust food safety system, foodborne illnesses remain a serious and costly public health and safety issue for government and for industry. Obviously there are individual consequences of food safety incidents abroad, where the losses fall sharply, but there is also economic loss in terms of reduced consumer confidence.

A little-known fact about my electorate is that we are, by employment numbers, the largest food manufacturing electorate of the 150 divisions in this place. Not only do we grow product in a primary sense but we are at the apex of food processing nationwide, because, thankfully, in very many cases we process that primary product. I have three internationally certified export abattoirs. There are great producers like Blue Lake Milling, producing rolled oats in the upper south-east, and myriad wineries. And, if you're spreading Philly on your toast in the morning, that's come from the south-east of South Australia, from Mount Gambier in particular.

Why might I be referring to these businesses?

I mention them in this context because very many of them use imported ingredients in the food manufacturing processes. They are by no means significant components of their manufacturing business, but in many cases they can't access the ingredients they need in these processing scenarios. They need to be confident that the foods imported under Australia's regulatory framework are safe for consumption, because they are effectively, literally, baked into the products that are then sold on as Australian products. Of course, that brings into question the very real sovereign risk associated with secondary use of an international ingredient, which is then effectively adopted as an Australian product. Should that create problems internationally it would have a devastating effect on the food processing and manufacturing sectors not only in my electorate but nationwide.

The bill provides a range of practical measures designed to strengthen and address the limitations of the current imported food regulatory system. We saw those limitations in 2015. Those of us who were in here, in this place, at that time dealt up close and personal with the hepatitis A outbreak from imported frozen berries, which highlighted those limitations. In response, we're increasing importers' accountability for food safety; we're ensuring they're sourcing safe food; we're improving the ability to monitor and manage new and emerging food safety risks; and we're improving food safety incident responses. We're doing all of that, I'm pleased to say, with a bipartisan approach, for which I congratulate the opposition. We do spend a lot of time in this place arguing the toss, but I'm constantly reminded, as I remind many of my constituents, and particularly younger students that I speak to, about how much of the good work we do in this place we do hand in glove with each other.

It is startling to know that in the financial year ending 30 June 2016 we imported $16 billion worth of food. Of course, in that period we exported a far larger amount—$40 billion worth of food. But we need to ensure that the food imported into our country is safe. There are some implicit undertakings, I think. When people purchase a good they need to know it's safe for consumption and fit for purpose. These regulatory changes improve the robust nature of our food safety system and will go some way to ensuring we have a stronger system. No system, sadly, is foolproof. There always remains a risk, but this process is about mitigating those risks—learning the lessons from the hep A outbreak in 2015 and baking them into a stronger food management system that is based around science, which makes importers into this country accountable for their choices and which ensures the risk of further food-borne illnesses and systemic outbreaks are limited.

In terms of accountability—obviously, ours is a government that believes in individual responsibility—I was very pleased to note that importers will face a full range of penalties on a strict liability basis, including up to 10 years jail and fines greater than $100,000, should they seek to thumb their nose at these regulatory limitations. Obviously we have regulatory responsibility for food that comes over our border and we want to make sure that the regime operates both as a general and specific deterrence: a specific deterrence to individuals who want to do the wrong thing, but a general deterrence to those who might be minded to consider doing the wrong thing and might be dissuaded from doing that based on the changes that we have put in place.

We enjoy a world-class food safety system in Australia. These changes, in short, will strengthen that system, enabling Australians to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world and to do it safely, with confidence. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high-quality and safe food, which we know is highly sought after internationally. In turn, this will deliver benefits for farmers, for our economy and for our nation as we lead to the export of high-quality, safe food. A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context