Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

congratulates the farmers of Tasmania on their bid to bring the plight of all farmers to the attention of the community and the Premier of Tasmania for supporting them;

(2)

condemns the Federal Government for:

(a)

the lack of labelling laws to allow the community to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food;

(b)

the fact that farmers in Tasmania and the rest of Australia are suffering from the unlevel playing field that exists in the import and export of fresh foods;

(c)

the fact the Federal Government is not achieving enough gains for farmers in their negotiations on free trade agreements with many countries, including the US and China; and

(d)

the lack of leverage for farmers trying to negotiate fair and just contracting rates for their produce; and

(3)

calls on the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to introduce legislation to ensure that labelling of farm products is unambiguous and works for the benefit of all Australian primary producers.

Members may remember towards the end of last year when the vegetable growers from Tasmania took to the road in their tractors and farm machinery and wended their way through the southern states to Canberra to point out the plight of vegetable farmers around Australia because of the terrible effects that some of the free trade agreements are having on Australian farmers. The ones of most concern are those with China and the US. They have been negotiated without decent labelling legislation that identifies to local buyers which fresh and frozen vegetables are grown in Australia and which are only packaged here. We could have solved this many years ago when the matter was raised before, but it has languished, gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. As the collection of farm vehicles drove to Canberra, support was given  by all the various shades of politics, all of which promised to do a number of things. Our state government in Tasmania had a look at the Food Standards ANZ recommendations in October last year and found them really lacking.

Much of this new interest was due to Tasmania’s industry developing a paper on the current situation and future of this industry. The Tasmanian vegetable industry situation paper covers issues of competitiveness, branding and labelling, trade, energy, quality assurance, regional factors, corporate buying policies of both supermarkets and quick service restaurants, transport, skills, water usage and structural matters—among others. It revealed some startling facts. For instance, Tasmania produces about eight per cent of Australia’s vegetables—at farm gate values. The vegetable sector represents 20 per cent of the value of the state’s agriculture, or $160 million at the farm gate and about $360 million when packed or processed.

Australian vegetables account for less than three per cent of the world’s vegetable trade and the industry faces declining competitiveness compared to other producing countries. Australia has been a net vegetable exporter but this is likely to be reversed within three to five years, placing supply pressure on the domestic Australian market. This market accounts for 70 per cent of all Tasmanian vegetable sales. Downturn in vegetable sector activity in Tasmania in 2005-06 is likely to reduce gross farm income by about $18.6 million. The wholesale value of lost production in processed vegetables and potatoes is likely to be more than $90 million. The economic impact will be most severe across northern Tasmania, especially the Cradle Coast region.

Based on industry figures, the gap between Australian and overseas competitors’ prices for some key commodities, such as potatoes, peas and corn, ranges from 19 per cent to 116 per cent. Key competitive differentials cited were input costs, including the costs of labour, occupational health and safety, quality assurance and environmental protection, current exchange rates and subsidies enjoyed by some major competitors. The high production costs and small scale of production units in Tasmania are cited by both processing companies as affecting the state’s competitiveness. McCain Foods’ average contract size in New Zealand is believed to be 7,000 tonnes, compared with a 700-tonne average in Tasmania. Similar situations exist in other crops and commodities.

Generally, there is an absence of Tasmanian branded produce in the marketplace, so it is impossible for local people to see what is ours—clean and green—and what is being imported. For example, I have been told that someone has been importing lettuces from China and selling them into McDonald’s, but it is hard to identify them when one is purchasing food from such a group. Supermarkets dominate the retail sector, which sells 65 per cent of all vegetables sold within Australia. Supermarkets are decreasing, and in some cases have entirely removed, suppliers’ brands from shelves. The local seasonal competitive advantage enjoyed by producers at certain times of the year is becoming less relevant as supermarkets and quick service food chains opt for global supply strategies. Existing country of origin labelling is inconsistently interpreted and applied and this is a situation that has existed for some time.

I was really pleased when this situation was highlighted by the farmers, because for too long we have not valued the produce grown in one of the most disease free areas of the world. We have something that other nations pay good money for, yet we are being targeted for produce dumping at the worst and, at the best, filling the pockets of the big supermarket chains. Labelling is one way of allowing the consumer to choose. If they want to pay a little more and buy jobs for Tasmanians, better products and the freshest around while also supporting the farmers develop new lines and ideas, then I think the labelling should reflect that.

I think my motion is pretty clear. The farmers and primary producers need some assistance, and that assistance should emphasise that when their product goes to market everyone knows it is fine Australian product and therefore consumers can make an informed choice. I hope the motion will be supported by all members. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I first read the motion moved by the member for Lyons I was somewhat bemused and astonished because all the action and direction on this issue has come from this side of the House. Subsequently, I found myself asking: what efforts has the Australian Labor Party and the member for Lyons made to support Tasmanian farmers? The honourable member says that we on this side of the House are failing to support Tasmanian farmers, that we are not achieving enough gains for farmers, and that we have not acted on the issue of country of origin labelling. So I ask the member for Lyons and his federal colleagues: where were they when we left on the Spirit of Tasmania and held a rally that went across to Melbourne and on to Shepparton, Ballarat, Mildura, Sydney and the steps of this building?

I was at many of the Fair Dinkum Food campaign rallies and I have to say that I never heard the name of the member for Lyons mentioned. Just today I inquired with the federal minister for agriculture and his department whether the Australian Labor Party or the member for Lyons had approached the minister about his concerns as outlined in the motion. I have to inform the House that the answer to both questions was no. There is a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of substance. In his motion the member for Lyons congratulates the Premier of Tasmania on supporting Tasmanian farmers. I can confirm that the Premier was at a number of the rallies. I met with the Premier and sat with him as we crossed Bass Strait with the Fair Dinkum Food campaign. I stood by him at the rally in Melbourne, but, very sadly, I did not see the member for Lyons or any of his federal colleagues.

But should we be surprised? We know that the Australian Labor Party has no credibility whatsoever on this issue. Only recently, through factional brawling, the Labor Party successfully moved to oust the only member of the Australian Labor Party who has any experience in this industry—the member for Corio and shadow minister for agriculture.

This motion calls on the House to condemn the federal government for the lack of labelling laws and to allow the community to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food. I have to ask the member for Lyons where he has been these past 10 months. Let me inform him that, in October last year, the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council agreed to a new country of origin labelling standard, which was gazetted into state and territory law in December 2005. The standard requires a distinct statement of origin on all fresh fruit, vegetables, seafoods and nuts. It will no longer be sufficient just to say that it is imported. Australian consumers now have a genuine choice; they can identify where their fresh food was grown.

To address outstanding concerns on frozen and packaged food products expressed by a number of stakeholders, including the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign organisers, the Australian government directed Food Standards Australia New Zealand to consider the feasibility and a cost benefit analysis of extending the country of origin labelling to products with two or fewer whole food ingredients. A report on this work, including a regulatory impact statement and the outcomes of public consultation, will be finalised at the end of the month. Let me remind the member for Lyons that it was this side of the House that had to lobby his own state’s Labor ministers of agriculture and health who sit on the FSANZ board. The Australian government has only one vote on the board.

Following the Canberra rally in August last year, the Australian government announced a $3 million industry partnership agreement. In delivering on its $3 million commitment, the Australian government has established the Australian Industry Development Group, which comprises a number of senior figures in the Australian vegetable industry. This group will be chaired by the leader of the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign. Sitting alongside him will be the senior manager of fresh produce in Coles supermarkets, the CEO of Simplot Australia, the chair of Horticulture Australia Ltd, the chair of the horticultural branch of the Victorian Farmers Federation and independent industry representation from the largest vegetable nursery in the Southern Hemisphere. The purpose of this group is to implement foundation projects which through an exhaustive process have been determined as the most effective means of creating positive change in the Australian vegetable industry.

By comparison, the alternative government—your party, Member for Lyons—has seen fit to dump its shadow agriculture minister and, at the same time that the Australian government has announced a $3 million commitment, the state government has announced a $4 million commitment. But all we have seen from the state government in Tasmania is three clowns dressed in vegetable outfits going around the shows. I presume we call them ‘Mr Bean’, ‘Mr Carrot’ and ‘Mr Parsnip’! (Time expired)

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the House that, in August last year, some 130 farm tractors descended on Parliament House after travelling the Tasmanian, Victorian and New South Wales countryside at the snail’s pace of 30 kilometres per hour. The journey of the Tasmanian potato growers, with the support of the member for Lyons, sparked national interest in a campaign on food labelling laws aimed at helping farmers and their communities to promote their products to Australian consumers. This year, the leader of those farmers, Richard Bovill, was recognised with an Order of Australia award. This highlighted his more than 20-year fight for rural communities. It also underlines the importance of the food labelling campaign he has led on behalf of these farmers and their communities.

But this issue is not just for Tasmanian farmers and their communities but for all Australians. It is about what is in Australia’s national best interests. I think I speak for most Australians in saying that none of us want to wake up one day, in five or 10 years time, and discover that our country, which is known for its agriculture, has suddenly become a net importer of vegetables. But that is exactly where we are headed as a nation at the moment. It is time we stopped playing politics as the member for Braddon has done in his contribution in the House today. This is in the best interests of all Australians.

I am sure that most Australians, were they more aware of the impact of their supermarket decisions, would take a stand and buy their own locally grown produce, given the choice. But, to make these decisions, they need to know which produce is Australian. The debate about better food labelling is not new, but we are reaching a critical juncture for the impact of such laws on farmers and local communities. This is why I fully support the motion by my colleague the member for Lyons, Dick Adams, calling on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, to introduce legislation that ensures the labelling of farm products is unambiguous and works for the benefit of all primary producers. It is simply about choice.

I contend that it is hard enough, in a fiercely competitive international marketplace, for Australian farmers to compete with produce from other countries. Australian vegetables account for less than three per cent of the world vegetable trade. The industry is facing declining competitiveness, which could reverse our position as a net vegetable exporter within three to five years. This in turn places supply pressure on the domestic Australian front, which makes up 70 per cent of all Tasmanian vegetable sales—a large chunk of that state’s agricultural produce.

The international position of our farmers in the world market is made all the more difficult because of the unlevel playing field in agriculture due to the massive subsidies in the EU, the US and Japan. I am pleased that the British Prime Minister raised some of these issues in his address to the parliament today. A more concerted effort by the Australian government, through its leadership of the Cairns Group, might have assisted the G20 developing countries in their fight against these tariffs in last year’s world trade negotiations. Again, the government was missing in action.

However, Australians can play a role in influencing outcomes for these farmers and our national economy, and that is to try wherever possible to buy Australian produce. The existing country of origin labelling laws are inconsistently interpreted and applied, making it difficult for consumers to make the choice of buying Australian produce. It is time the Australian government made it easier for all Australians to make these choices, to the benefit both of Tasmanian farmers and of the country as a whole.

I believe this fits in with past strategies pursued by Labor in government, under the Agrifood Council, which were about not only improving farm practices alone but also positioning Australian food manufacturing industries to capitalise on the growth in the middle class in the Asian economy for the purposes of buying high-quality manufactured Australian food products. The country of origin campaign is about Australian consumers having the right to know what they purchase. I very much believe, as does the member for Lyons, that, given that choice, they will err on the side of supporting not only Tasmanian farmers but Australian farmers generally, and in doing so will support local communities who are doing it very tough on the international stage.

I commend the motion to the House, and I congratulate not only the Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon, who was rewarded with a very handsome majority at the recent state election, but also the member for Lyons, Dick Adams. They have shown collective leadership, in association with some members on the other side of the chamber and some members in the state parliament, to educate the Australian community on this issue. (Time expired)

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by congratulating my parliamentary colleague from Tasmania Mr Adams, the member for Lyons, on at least part of his private member’s motion—that is, his offer to congratulate that fine group of Tasmanians on their bid to bring the plight of all Australian farmers to the attention of the community.

I too was proud to stand on the lawns of Parliament House with those men and women from rural Tasmania and from all over rural Australia who brought their message to Canberra with their Fair Dinkum Food campaign. Indeed I stood there with Liberal and Labor colleagues, which was refreshing. May I take this opportunity to also congratulate my colleague the member for Braddon, who has demonstrated outstanding leadership in this regard.

The convergence on Canberra was the final part of a long journey by the campaigners, who had travelled through rural and city Australia, calling for better food labelling laws for fruit and vegetables. Leading 130 tractors and thousands of campaigners was Tasmanian farmer Richard Bovill, who deserves special mention for his drive and initiative.

The Fair Dinkum Food campaign was so successful and attracted so much community attention because people in Australia do care about where their food comes from, and they deserve to be given an informed choice. Last year I raised the issue of food labelling relating to country of origin with the parliamentary secretary for health, and may I say that this was prior to it becoming a media issue at all. I wanted the government to give more practical action to this issue.

Food labelling is a pressing issue in Tasmania, particularly in important primary production areas such as the north-east, which is in my fine electorate of Bass, and the north-west. It is about consumer choice: people do want to know if their potatoes are coming from Scottsdale or Slovakia. To me this seems to be increasingly important given the potential for an influx of primary produce from developing nations as a consequence of free trade agreements. I do not propose that in principle we ought to argue with that. As a nation whose economy relies in large part on the export of minerals and primary produce, we do not prevent other countries from selling their goods abroad. However, our consumers, our community, deserve to be able to make their choice at the supermarket in the full knowledge that food is safe and in the full knowledge of the country it was grown and processed in. I am very supportive of moves to improve the level of information made available to consumers so that the name of the country of origin is obvious.

But where I must now disagree with the motion from the member for Lyons is on his attempt to condemn the federal government for not doing enough on the food labelling issue. The previous speaker, the member for Batman, did make a very salient point: this ought to be a bipartisan issue. I put to the House that the member for Lyons, in his attempt to condemn the government, is just playing politics. He says that consumers are not able to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food, and he is calling for legislation. On these points I today stand quite happily to defend the Australian government and the minister responsible in this regard. The Australian government is continuing to consult and has made substantial developments in the food labelling area, which have also involved the cooperation, to different degrees, of the states and New Zealand. The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code contains a standard requiring all packaged food and unpackaged fruit, vegetables, seafood and pork to display specific origin information, not just that the product is imported.

This came about when state and Commonwealth ministers agreed to the country of origin labelling standard at a meeting in October last year. This was gazetted into law around the country last December and will become legally enforceable in June this year. In further recognition that additional support is needed the Australian government has committed $3 million to help industry tackle the serious challenges that the horticultural industry faces.

I would say that we have made significant progress. Fair enough, perhaps more is needed. But I would say that I am personally very proud of the progress we have made. The motion of the member for Lyons is based on a sensible premise, but his criticisms are very much misdirected, ill-informed and running well late of his opportunity to have been a constructive player in addressing this issue of importance to rural communities like mine and that of my colleague the member for Braddon.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by firstly congratulating Tasmanian farmers on their initiative and their campaign, together with their support for the member for Lyons, to pursue clearer country of origin labelling for foods and agricultural products. I suppose the decision by McDonald’s to source potatoes from an overseas supplier brought all this to a head, particularly in looking at the economy of Tasmania, where agriculture clearly rates very highly in the contribution to its economic position.

Clearly companies such as McDonald’s can easily rationalise decisions to source the supply of essential agricultural products and foodstuffs, potatoes in this case, simply by referring us back to the basic and immediate aspects of economic viability at any particular point in time. Sadly, McDonald’s at that stage did not have regard for its own position in the marketplace, and it did not have much regard for the livelihood of farmers in Tasmania or those who work for farmers in Tasmania.

Last year we had a rather bizarre situation where farmers in Tasmania were being encouraged to plough their cauliflower into the ground rather than to try to take it to market, simply because supermarkets were able to access overseas cauliflower at an almost dumped price into the Australian market, debasing the essential economics of farming in Tasmania. Companies do not necessarily deserve to have a life raft thrown to them every time that there is an economic imperative confronting industry but, quite frankly, a country that fails to be able to feed itself by not being able to grow its own food and to sustain itself agriculturally is a country in decline. I would actually submit that what the member for Lyons has done with his colleagues in support of the people of Tasmania, and what the farmers themselves have done, is draw the attention of the Australian population at large to the fact that, unless we do scrutinise the sourcing of our food products, quite clearly we will become a country in decline because we will actually lose the ability to feed ourselves. That is not simply deleterious to our economy; that is deleterious to our own strategic security. A country that cannot feed itself will suffer the fate of others that have gone before it and find itself in decline. Having said that, that is not dissimilar from a country that fails to be able to manufacture for itself. For instance, if we lose the ability to be able to manufacture and produce our goods in this country through simply relying on the skills, ability and cheaper costs of some overseas subsidised suppliers, we will lose our strategic ability as a country to be able to compete not only in an immediate economic sense but also well into the future.

I hope that, as a result of country of origin labelling, consumers will scrutinise what is in their shopping trolleys from here on in and give first preference to an Australian product. Similarly, I hope that Australian farmers, as a result of this campaign, will also scrutinise their plant and consumables and see that what is capable of being manufactured in Australia is manufactured in Australia. For instance, I trust that people, including the farmers responsible for this campaign, will understand the concerns of Qantas employees who recently tried to ensure that the airline would retain Australian labour in servicing Australian aircraft. They are moving to protect not only Australian jobs but also the strategic ability of this country to service itself. Simply turning away 300,000 kids from TAFE over the last 10 years, so jeopardising the skills base of this country, has an extreme and deleterious effect on the further economic security of this country. I support the motion that has been put forward, I congratulate the farmers of Tasmania on the stand that they have taken and I congratulate the member for Lyons for bringing this to our attention. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the member for Fisher that the time for this debate will expire in three minutes and 40 seconds.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, at your insistence I had better make this a quality three minute and now maybe 20 second contribution to this debate on farmers. Let me say at the outset that I strongly support the principle behind the motion moved by my good friend the honourable member for Lyons. It is vital to recognise that Tasmanian farmers ought to be supported. It is also very important to have proper labelling laws and so on. I do think, though, it inappropriate for the member for Lyons to seek in some way, shape or form to criticise the current government for its failure to have appropriate labelling laws. As a member of a party supporting the government, I have very great admiration for not only the farmers of Tasmania but also the farmers of Australia, including the farmers of the federal electorate of Fisher situated on the Sunshine Coast. Australian farmers, including Tasmanian farmers, have succeeded in promoting their produce as some of the freshest and tastiest in the world, and that is certainly very important. The member for Lyons is no doubt a keen advocate of his electorate, and we are very pleased these days to have the member for Bass and the member for Braddon as members of the Liberal Party of Australia because they also are able to verify how effective the Tasmanian farming community is in producing and selling products of very great quality.

The member opposite representing the Australian Labor Party has falsely criticised the government over an issue that I think really ought to have a bipartisan approach. The labelling of foods has attracted considerable interest over a very long time and the Australian government under its current manifestation is amongst those who have had a longstanding interest in this topic. It is good to know that consumers around Australia will soon be able to better determine the origin of the foods which they buy, thanks to the introduction by the Australian government, in December 2005, of a new country of origin food-labelling standard for Australia. This issue of having accurate and readable labelling on all of our foods has been the focus of government attention for some time. In October last year, the public was further informed that the government wanted clear labelling of foods to reduce the chance of confusion on the part of the consumer. It was made clear then that the states should shoulder a great proportion of the blame that has arisen as a result of that confusion. There has also been evidence that some of the governments of the states and territories have not made the effort they should have with respect to enforcing country of origin labelling. This is unacceptable, and I understand that the Australian government has had words with the recalcitrant states on this issue. I hope the honourable member for Lyons, who is now in the chair, has contacted the re-elected Labor government of Tasmania to ask that it pull its socks up and show some improvements to its own performance in that area.

The new food standards came about as a result of negotiations among officials in both Australia and New Zealand. For unpackaged fruit, vegetables, nuts and seafood, the standard will come into effect within three months, while the standard will come into force in December for unpackaged pork products and in December 2007 for packaged goods. The Australian government, in its Liberal manifestation, has long recognised the benefits of clearer, better labelling. There have also been considerable requests from the general public, because they want to know that what they buy is Australian. This is an important issue, and I thank the House for the opportunity to make a contribution.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.