Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry's inquiry into country of origin food labelling, A clearer message for consumers.

There have been a number of inquiries into Australia's food labelling system in the last ten years, even though most, including the extensive Labelling logic Blewett review, have focused on a wide range of issues surrounding food labelling and safety.

When considering an inquiry topic the committee was of the opinion that while other reports had made recommendations in the area of country of origin food labelling, considerable public confusion and frustration remained and that the topic was one which was repeatedly raised by consumers on media such as talkback radio.

Accordingly the committee requested support from the ministers of industry and agriculture to mount a specific inquiry into the issue with an aim of recommending possible modifications which would provide clarification to the general public while at the same time taking great care not to inflict anticompetitive burdens on our food manufacturers and growers.

The committee agreed on 27 March to undertake an inquiry into Australia's country of origin food labelling. During the course of the inquiry the committee received 54 submissions; seven supplementary submissions; held seven public hearings in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra; and spent a day in Adelaide visiting and meeting food manufacturers to gauge their views in the workplace environment.

It became clear very early in the inquiry that the 'safe harbour' descriptors were in some cases not providing any information to the general public as to the origin of food products. While in most cases industries are complying with the law, often using the 'safe harbour' descriptors, the general public do not understand what they mean.

It was made quite clear to the committee that the country of origin of food is not overly important to many and that relevant information is considered less important on heavily processed foods. However, to a significant and important sector of the market, country of origin information is important and clear information should be provided to the consumer.

The committee was of the opinion that any country of origin food labelling regime should not present an impediment to importers and/or provide non-tariff trade protection to our industries, but it should provide clear information to consumers who wish to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers.

The committee strongly supports the current labelling system's non-prescriptive manner in the way a food manufacturer or marketer should represent a particular food's country of origin status.

Some examples include front or back of pack labelling, focus on particular regions or specific countries for the origin of selected ingredients and logos or individualised wording. These are all acceptable as long as they provide the minimum information and are not false, misleading or deceptive. Consequently, the committee has limited its suggestions for change to the country of origin labelling system to adjustments to the 'safe harbour' claims.

It is the committee's opinion that none of the recommended changes would have any significant negative impact on Australian producers or manufacturers but that the core recommendations concerning the 'safe harbour' claims will provide common sense information that consumers can understand.

At the heart of the recommendations is that each item should have a separate reference to the ingredients and the manufacture of goods. It keeps the best of what is good with the Australian country of origin statements, provides some specialised language that puts some separation between food and other products in the Australian market and most importantly addresses the confusion surrounding the 'Made in Australia' and 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' descriptors.

The committee would like to express its appreciation to all who have contributed their valuable time and shared their experience with us throughout the course of the inquiry. I, and I hope the rest of my committee, will be pressuring the government to respond in a positive matter to these recommendations and adopt them.

In closing, I would particularly like to thank my committee—my deputy chair, the member for Hotham; and other members in the chamber at the moment: the member for Durack, the member for O'Connor and the member for Indi. I thank them for attending this morning and thank the rest of the members of the committee for their hard work on this inquiry.

I must say that it is one of those experiences of the parliamentary committee system where everybody in the committee was working for a common goal and worked very well and cohesively together. I would especially like to thank the secretariat—in particular, Julia Morris, Anthony Overs and Lauren Wilson, who laboured very hard over these recommendations. (Time expired)

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to rise today to endorse the report that has been given by the chair of the committee. We have been working as a really cohesive and committed team for about the last six months on this very practical and very important question of how we label food so that consumers know where that food has come from. It is important for industry; it is important for farmers and all types of food producers in Australia, but most importantly it is incredibly important to Australian consumers. As the chair has noted, one of the first things that we learnt in this inquiry was that when it comes to particularly fresh food, where that food comes from is actually the single most important factor for consumers in making decisions about what it is that they buy. We know that, in an increasingly globalised world, we live in a rather strange time where things that we eat can come from just about anywhere in the world, and consumers are saying to us that it is very important to them that they know where that food comes from.

Despite the clear importance of this, one of the second things that we learnt through this process is that there is very widespread confusion about how the labelling system works so that consumers can make good choices and so that producers can make it clear where it is that food comes from. Of the issues that we heard, the first is a very practical one. Where on the packaging is the labelling of where the food comes from? We heard that there is a great many categories of how you can label food is coming from one country or another, but those categories all come with different kinds of test how the claims are satisfied. We heard that different claims could be satisfied in different ways, just adding to the confusion there. Sometimes claims have different meanings and there is quite an extensive range of issues about how labels for country of origin in Australia interact with similar systems overseas—in particular, in New Zealand.

I will provide a few examples, so those in the gallery and those at home can get a bit of a flavour for what we are talking about here. One of the common labels that we see on food is the statement 'made in Australia'. Take the apple pie, for example. What we learned through this process is that if the packaging and pastry were made in Australia but the apples were imported from China, the product could be labelled 'made in Australia'. Any normal consumer would read that and think that the key ingredient in the apple pie—apples—would have been grown in Australia, but actually that is not the case. And we know that about 70 per cent of ham and pork that is bought by Australian consumers under the label 'made in Australia' is in fact grown and reared in another country. Again, this is completely confusing and completely at odds with what the normal person would read and think. Another confusing statement that we heard a great deal about was the claim 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. We know that about 90 per cent of the apple juice in Australia that has this label is made from apples that come from overseas. Again, that is not clear to consumers in the labelling.

Producers also came out in quite some force to talk to the committee about the issues that they were facing. One of the really critical and, I think, damning facts about the current system is that when we talked to food producers around the country we found that they were not using the labels that are available to them. The labels are so confusing to consumers that producers actually make up their own language that they believe that they can satisfy. We can see that when consumers are confused, when producers are not using the system, then it is a system that is fundamentally not working.

The committee have come up with a set of recommendations that we believe will clarify the situation. I will leave it to those interested to access the report, which has been so beautifully written and so well researched by those on the committee staff who helped us. I have a couple of points I would like to make in closing. I want to make a special thank you to the committee staff—some of them are here in the chamber today—to Julia Morris, Anthony Overs, Lauren Wilson, Leonie Bury and Prudence Zuber. They were exemplary in how they resourced the committee, how they explored the areas that came up in the inquiry and how perfectly organised they were. They were fantastic to work with and I think that this report is a real credit to their hard work. To the other committee members—and some of them are in the chamber today—the public do not always see these really constructive moments in the parliament and I have to say that working on this report was one of them. We all came to it with the best of intentions to try to solve this particular policy problem facing Australia. The way that we work together is something that I am very proud of.

In conclusion, thank you to the member for Grey for chairing the committee and I commend the report to the parliament.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Grey wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.