Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Two, I'm being told. It's the member for Swan in the great regional and rural seat of Swan, which I think, from memory, is inner-city East Victoria Park. That's what they've managed to do. Where are the members for New England, Gippsland, Dawson, Parkes, Murray, Calare, Lyne, Cowper, Page, Capricornia, Maranoa, Riverina. I'll give the member for Riverina his due: He may be a bit distracted at the moment. Where are the members for Wide Bay, Flynn, Hinkler? That's just the National Party MPs. What about all those regional Liberals who claim to represent country Australia? Where are they on this bill, which is all about improving regional Australia and agriculture?

Once again the Nationals have been shown to be pretenders when it comes to regional Australia. The Nationals and Liberals who represent regional electorates will vote for corporate tax cuts and measures that make it harder for country kids to go to uni and more expensive for country people to go to a doctor, but they're hardly anywhere to be seen when it comes to speaking in support of a bill that serves to strengthen country-of-origin labelling.

I must briefly come back to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who has not taken an opportunity to have any input into this debate. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources today was asked a question in support of farming families. What is he going to do? Where does he stand on the issue of farming families who are being preyed upon by payday lenders? What was his response? Not, 'I will support families.' His response was all about profit and loss and how hard it was for business to have a go in this country. What an extraordinary contribution from a minister for agriculture who purports to represent regional Australia and regional families, speaking not in defence of regional families but in defence of payday lenders and those who prey upon vulnerable families. Labor is supporting this bill, but it is important to remind Australians that this government has been asleep at the wheel and clearly distracted from acting in the best interests of farmers and regional communities like mine. That is why I support the member for Hunter's amendment.

Tasmania's economy depends heavily on agriculture. It contributes $1.5 billion a year to our state economy. That's slated to reach $10 billion a year in around 30 years as new ventures come online and existing farmers ramp up production. As much as those opposite—like the member for Mallee—like to parrot the fiction that they are the parties that look after people on the land, it is a lie that has been exposed in recent months. It is Labor that has been a big part of Tasmania's agricultural success story. It was Labor that initiated Tasmania's agricultural irrigation schemes, which now transform once marginal paddocks into highly productive farms. It was Labor that invested billions in improving our state's highways to ensure that product could reach market quicker and fresher. What has this government done about improving the highways of Tasmania so that agricultural produce can get to market? Nothing. There was nothing in last year's so-called infrastructure budget for the infrastructure of Tasmania.

And it was Labor that protected Tasmania from biosecurity threats. It wasn't Labor who cut biosecurity funding; that was the Liberals both here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania. It was this government in Canberra, the former agriculture minister, the member for New England, who abolished the position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity—unbelievable! With biosecurity at the forefront of what Australian producers and importers care about, the former agriculture minister abolished the office of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. Of course, after Labor forcefully pointed out the error of his ways, he reluctantly reinstated the office, but not with the same powers that existed under Labor.

It was Liberal governments here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania that watched and did nothing as rust infected our blueberries and fruit fly invaded our island. As a result, our fruit producers have had to throw away valuable produce and they've been shut out of lucrative markets, and it could take them years to regain access. And what's been the Tasmanian Liberal government's response? Control zones guarded by wheelie bins. What a joke! The cafe manager from Christmas Hills Raspberry Farm in my electorate says that she has been dealing with confused customers since the fruit fly outbreak started. The raspberry farm is outside the control zone, but many people—many of them tourists from interstate and overseas—are unsure about what they can and cannot do. Unbelievable, it is cafe staff, not biosecurity officers, who have been informing visitors about their obligations and helping them dispose of fruit properly. Farmers and retailers have been left to mop up the mess that the Liberals have created with their cuts to biosecurity. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Like the farmers in the regional communities that we represent, Labor is aghast at the monumental biosecurity failures that have occurred under the Liberals—failures that occurred after cuts were made to biosecurity resources by Liberal governments in Canberra and Tasmania. Labor warned about the risks when the cuts were first proposed and made, but we were ignored. In 2015 a Senate inquiry into biosecurity, chaired by Tasmanian senator Anne Urquhart, cautioned the government that its cuts to staffing, resources and innovation would affect our nation's ability to continue to export and import successfully. But the Liberals and Nationals have never been short on arrogance and a 'we know all' attitude. The warnings were ignored, and now it is Labor that must fix the problem that the Liberals have created.

On Saturday, Tasmanians get the chance to vote for a Labor government in Tasmania, led by Rebecca White, who grew up on a farm and understands the importance of agriculture to our state. Rebecca White is pledging $3.7 million to address biosecurity gaps. I am pleased to tell the House that federal Labor, following representations from the members for Braddon and Bass and me, will, if we are elected to government, contribute $2 million to recruit an additional 20 biosecurity officers for Tasmania, helping to address the gap that has been left by cuts by the Liberal government. That's real action to be delivered by a Rebecca White Labor government to fix the biosecurity mess that the Liberals have created.

I can't overstate how important Tasmania's agricultural reputation is to my state's economic future. We are known the world over for clean, green produce. If fruit, vegetables, nuts, spirits, seafood, beer or dairy comes from Tasmania, you know it's among the best in the world. That is one of the reasons I am so passionate about our biosecurity and it is also why I support not just stringent country of origin labelling but region of origin labelling. Just as we can no longer call Australian sparkling wine champagne, no-one should be able to claim that something is Tasmanian if it is not. Last year, I addressed the issue of a mainland gin operation marketing itself as a Tasmanian product on the basis that it used a tiny little sprinkling of Tasmanian saffron in its drink. While less than impressed with the lukewarm response that I received from the ACCC, which arrived to me many weeks after my complaint, I do acknowledge that if we want tougher laws against charlatans who seek to piggyback on the hard work of Tasmanian producers it is up to us in this place and in the state jurisdictions to enact tougher labelling laws.

And I note that Tasmanian Labor will, if elected on Saturday, commit $500,000 to improve the professional marketing of Brand Tasmania to international and Australian markets. It is not quite region of origin labelling but it is a start. Better labelling of the origin of food is a no-brainer, for so many reasons, and it is something that consumers demand. Choice did a survey back in mid-2015 that found 80 per cent of respondents wanted to know where their food was from because they want to purchase food grown or made in Australia. Eighty per cent said it was crucial to their purchasing that they could clearly see that something was made here and what proportion of the product was made here. Two-thirds of consumers who were surveyed felt strongly about supporting Australian made and buying Australian to support Aussie farmers.

My Tasmanian colleague the member for Braddon, in her contribution to this legislation, has called for Tasmania to be a trial site for country of origin labelling for seafood. Fresh and frozen seafood sold in retail outlets such as the supermarket or the fishmonger—if there are any left—already requires country of origin labelling. But cooked seafood, such as the fish that is prepared in a restaurant or a fish and chip shop, is currently exempt. The member for Braddon is proposing, as am I, that it is time to fix this anomaly. There is no reason why country of origin and, preferably, region of origin should not appear on menus to give consumers more information about what they are buying.

The Tasmanian seafood industry is fully on board, with a trial based in our state, and it would bring us into line with the Northern Territory, with its mandated country of origin labelling for all seafood products. Having come from an island state, with considerable sadness I can tell the House that, incredibly, 70 per cent of all seafood consumed in Australia comes from overseas. What a tragedy it is to be an island nation surrounded by waters with some of the best fisheries in the world that has not had the sense to better support a stronger domestic commercial fishery. But I am pleased to say that the Buy Australian movement is getting stronger. The marketplace is demanding increased transparency in production methods and places, and that is something we should all support.

Consumers are getting savvier. They want to know more about the food they buy—how it's grown, what's in it and whether it's sustainable. Tasmania is well placed to benefit from this greater emphasis on food quality. That is the sort of quality you get from Tasmanian Truffles, which is run these days by brother and sister Henry and Anna Terry near Deloraine in my electorate. Henry and Anna are familiar faces to many who watch the program My Kitchen Rules. They have wowed the judges with their creations. But when they are not cooking up a storm on TV they are managing the family farm outside Deloraine, with faithful sidekick Doug the labrador, and adding value to their amazing product.

Tasmanian produce received accolades recently from none other than Nigella Lawson, who just conducted a food tour across our state. She was in raptures, telling her 2.6 million Twitter followers that the homegrown potatoes cooked in crushed salt that she ate in Launceston were 'just splendiferous'. Last year Alain Passard from France, Dominique Crenn from the USA and Christian Puglisi from Italy took part in the 'Great Chef Series' in Launceston and Hobart, focusing on unique products and local wineries, and farmers were invited to spend time with the chefs to develop a menu unique to their region. There's the Agrarian Kitchen in the south of my electorate. There's Redlands Distillery in Kempton. There are so many stories of so many places doing wonderful things with food.

We are committed to retaining quality in Tasmania. This is one of the reasons we are so strongly committed in Tasmania to retaining Tasmania's status as being free of genetically modified food. Let me be clear: I'm not against the science of GM food. There's a place in the global market for GM and its benefits for greater yields and resistance to pests and disease. But Tasmania and Tasmanian farmers are best served by offering a premium product to markets willing to pay more for food unadulterated by GM. If we allow GM into Tasmania, there will be no going back. Tasmanian farmers will no longer be competing in premium price markets but against the big producers that sell on volume.

A small state like Tasmania, with its myriad of small and medium producers who produce quality food, cannot compete in the volume space. We will end up being price takers not price setters. Keeping Tasmania GM free is something that Tasmanian Labor members will fight hard for, even if it does put us offside with some in this place who think GM should be embraced nationwide with no holds barred. On that note, I'd like to say Labor is happy to support the government' bill, but the government should be held to account for its manifest failures in agricultural policy. That's why I support the member for Hunter's amendment to the bill.

See this speech in context