Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very important matter. To put it in context, I want to read directly from the explanatory memorandum as to why it's important and what this legislation, the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, proposes to do. It says:

The Bill will:

I outline those points because I'll come to them later in my comments with respect to this legislation.

As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, food imports and exports are important to the Australian economy. In 2016-17, Australia imported $16.2 billion of food—indeed, one department says it was $17.5 billion—and we exported $42.4 billion in the same year, so it's a huge economic sector. Australia's largest source countries of food are New Zealand, the USA, China, Thailand and Singapore. I also note that there has been a 10 per cent growth rate over the last five years for imported processed foods—I stress the word 'processed'—and there has been an almost eight per cent increase, as a five-year growth rate, for imported unprocessed foods. I want to differentiate between the two because they are two different types of foods and they're managed in different ways when they come in in terms of the biosecurity risks that they pose. Food importation is a growing business in this country. I understand that there are now some 16,000 registered food importers around the country. They have employees and they have made investments in this country, so it's a huge issue to each of them and, I suspect, to the communities in which they are based.

The other point I note is that inspections are based on what are referred to as perceived risks. If there's a perceived high risk, up to 100 per cent of products are inspected. That risk will reduce over time if there are no anomalies or problems. If it is a low-risk importer then five per cent is inspected, but that will increase if there are breaches. You would think that is the way it ought to be. I also note that Australia has some 15 importers who operate under a food import compliance agreement, which means that they have their own arrangements in place in terms of how they are licensed to operate. Australia is a party to some government-to-government certification agreements. I make those points just to highlight the complexity of how food is managed when it comes into Australia or leaves Australia. Separate to the economic and social importance, we have environmental assets in this country that are estimated to be worth some $6 trillion, and they will possibly be at risk if disease and pest plants come into this country.

Of course, the issue that seems to be at the forefront of most people's minds is the question of public health and safety. I can understand why that is the case, because not only can it cause some serious health consequences to people who consume food that is in some way unfit for human consumption but also once the food is consumed and, therefore, a problem arises, serious trade disagreements between countries can occur as a result of what has happened. The regulation impact statement points out that in 2010—and I think the member for Hunter made this very point—there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal foodborne illnesses in Australia and some 86 deaths. How many of those were related to imported foods is not known, but what we do know is that not all countries have the robust food inspection and growing regulations that exist in Australia. We know that 33 cases of hepatitis A were associated with frozen berries that were imported from China in 2015. Last year, another four cases were detected from berries that came from the same place—possibly from the same time but had been kept in storage. We also know that in 2013 a 10-year-old boy died in Australia from an allergic reaction to imported food that contained undeclared milk, which the boy happened to be allergic to. I have no doubt that there are many more foodborne illnesses that occur in Australia than those that are recorded or registered.

Contaminated imported agricultural products also pose a very serious and real threat to the Australian agricultural sector and the livelihoods of Australian food growers. We have heard in this debate about the devastation caused to the Queensland prawn industry by white spot disease, which, it is very likely, came from imported prawns. Those losses ran into tens of millions of dollars, and I'm not sure if the problem has been rectified as yet. In recent years, Australia's olive oil industry has been undermined by the importation of low-grade oil that was rejected in Europe and then dumped at cheap prices here in Australia. The oil, which allegedly had been poorly processed and stored, posed both a health risk and an economic risk because it undermined the viability of Australian oil producers here in this country, and I suspect that that is still going on. It may well have been masked in some way at the time that it was raised a few years ago, and there might have been some steps taken to ensure that it doesn't continue, but I suspect that it is still going on. Australia, regrettably, because of the strength of our economy, is all too often seen as a dumping ground for all kinds of products—not only food products—that can't be sold in other parts of the world. More recently, there have been the fruit flies detected on Flinders Island, and that also presents a major and very real threat to Tasmanian farmers. The wellbeing and livelihoods of those farmers, and of whole communities, are at risk because of a fruit fly infestation. That, in turn, reflects on the biosecurity control measures that are in place in Tasmania.

The last point I want to make is that we shouldn't always simply assume that the risks are associated only with the handling, processing and storage of foods. The reality is that there are also real risks associated with where the foods come from in respect of the quality of the water used, the quality of the soil in which those foods are produced and the quality of the atmosphere in the surrounding areas. There are parts of the world that are so polluted but still producing food which is then exported to other parts of the world. If I knew the food was coming from those places, I simply wouldn't consume it. I suppose that's one of the reasons why we wanted to change food-labelling laws in this country, so that at least people can make their own choice about what risks they wish to take, particularly with respect to food. As I say, in some parts of the world, water, land and chemical pollution has reached a crisis point and, again, we should be very cautious about buying food from those places—or, at least, consumers should be aware of where the food has come from.

All of these regulations and the points I made earlier on, outlining the specifics of this bill, are important because they're intended to provide confidence to both the food producers and the consumers in this country. But of course if we have regulations which are not able to be policed and implemented, then they have little value and are of little importance. The critical issue with respect to all of this legislation is ensuring that we provide the right resourcing to the agencies that are expected to enforce the very regulations that arise from this legislation.

I stress that point for this reason. About a year ago, Australian meat exports to China from six different locations were suspended. It wasn't the same producer, either. My understanding—and I rely on my memory here—is that there were two or three different producers involved and six locations. So just get the picture here: different producers in different locations, but, in all of those locations, breaches in the export conditions relating to those products were identified, and the Chinese suspended the import of all that product. When I asked the head of the department, 'Does the department carry any responsibility with respect to those breaches, and did it fall down in the inspection of those products?' the department washed its hands of any responsibility.

How can you have a system in place where breaches are occurring, across different manufacturers and food producers in different locations, and none of the breaches are getting picked up at any point? I suspect they didn't get picked up because, quite frankly, the department is underresourced. That's the real reason. So, whilst the government talks about strengthening our biosecurity arrangements and brings in legislation that would do that, the real question is: what resourcing is being provided simultaneously to enable those regulations to be implemented and enforced? I suspect, not enough, and that's why, perhaps, Tasmania, right now has got a fruit fly problem. I understand that there have also been changes made by the state government in Tasmania to its own primary industries department and the staffing arrangements there.

When we consider the importance of this area to Australia, economically, socially and environmentally, it is indeed an area that should get priority. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't. I have spoken with people who work in Customs and the department of agriculture over the years, and it concerns me that they are not adequately resourced to do the job that we ask them to do. If they were better resourced then we would have, and could have, a great deal more confidence that the system is working well. It is not the regulations that we need. It is not the laws that we need. It is actually the resourcing, because those officers, those departmental staff that are out there doing their work every day, know exactly what to do and how to do it, and they know what they are looking for. But the problem is that there's too much work on their plate for them to do everything that needs to be done.

I guess the real concern about all of that is that, in most cases, the department is actually financed and funded by the producers and growers themselves, who have to pay for the inspections. So, if that is the case, there seems to be some kind of imbalance between the funding they are receiving, the work they are doing and the processes that we have for them to operate under, because, if it's a system where the producers, growers and exporters are having to pay for the inspections, there is no excuse for not doing more inspections so that the system is more secure for all Australians.

See this speech in context