Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of food labelling in country of origin is of great importance to Australian consumers and our primary producers alike. The independent review of food labelling law and policy commissioned by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council released its report Labelling logic on 28 January 2011. The independent review recommended, as part of its 61 recommendations, that information on food labels be presented in a clear and comprehensible manner to enhance understanding across all levels of the population. The national peak industry body representing vegetable and potato growers, Ausveg, has been very active over the years in calling for more accurate and understandable country-of-origin labelling to aid consumers in making informed purchasing choices. It is vital they say to level the playing field and provide consumers with a choice to purchase Australian or imported products as they see fit. Ausveg cautiously welcomed the broad recommendations made by the panel members in the independent report, but stated that what was really required was a comprehensive plan that would address the current confusion about country of origin and put in place a nationally consistent and enforceable system for making country-of-origin claims at point of sale. They argue that not only are the current defences regarding the country of origin through the former Trade Practices Act and now the new ACL, Australian Consumer Law, difficult to enforce but they have been prone to exploitation over the years by companies looking to play on and gain market advantage through deceptive conduct. This continues to ring alarm bells for consumers. Numerous surveys have shown that if given the opportunity to buy Australian products consumers would exercise that right. Consumers should be afforded that choice and those growers, many of whom comply with strict quality assurance regulations that international suppliers do not have to adhere to, should be on an equal footing.

The traffic light system proposed by the panel is not the answer. Firstly, a voluntary labelling system is unlikely to succeed and, secondly, it fails to address the crucial issue of country of origin. What is required now is that appropriate power and resources be given to the ACCC to enforce these matters and ensure that consumers are not being misled. I support recommendation 57 in the report which states:

That monitoring and enforcement of food labelling requirements of the Food Standards Code (accuracy as well as the presence of labelling information) be considered equally important as other aspects of the Food Standards Code and the responsible agencies be given the appropriate level of resources to meet their obligations.

What also concerns me is the quantity of imports from countries whose questionable regulatory health and safety practices continue to increase. This is concerning considering the decreasing capacity of Australian consumers to distinguish between Australian grown and international counterparts. Only five per cent of imported produce is tested by AQIS and the testing range for chemicals is limited. That is not enough protection against diseases, pests and potentially unsafe chemical levels. Our biosecurity is a real issue that should not be taken lightly. At a national level, Australia imported $555 million worth of vegetables in 2009-10. While the new ground of defence afforded under the ACL, effective 1 January of this year, may be more difficult for companies to exploit, it does not go far enough. More information on safety concerns with regard to food products in general is required. I am also of the view that the Blewett report lacks clarity in an identifiable way forward when it comes to a solution to the overarching issue of country-of-origin labelling.