Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to make some brief remarks about the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, A clearer message for consumers. I appreciated being a member of the committee whilst it carried out the inquiry into country-of-origin labelling for food. I thank all of those people who made representations to the committee. From memory, 50-odd presenters made formal submissions and gave evidence to the inquiry. It was an inquiry that gave a very good overview of the current country-of-origin labelling laws and systems and the issues confronting Australian producers and manufacturers. I walked away from the inquiry having a much clearer picture of what the issues are, the concerns of the industry broadly and the kinds of things we ought to try to do to assist producers and manufacturers in this country.

The committee's report contains eight recommendations, which does not sound like a lot, but they were eight important recommendations. I am not going to go into the detail of them because my view is that if somebody really wants to know about the inquiry they ought to get a copy of the report and read it. It is not a very large report and it summarises the issues much better than I can do in the few minutes that I have available to me.

This inquiry took place only a couple of years after the Blewett inquiry into effectively the same issues. From memory, the Blewett inquiry came up with 70-odd recommendations. I am a little disappointed that we have not implemented all of the recommendations of that inquiry, one in particular, which I will come to in just a moment. Nevertheless, this issue is very important to so many people across the country, particularly producers, food growers and food manufacturers. It is important on two grounds. Firstly, I believe that a consumer has the right to know what is in food, they have the right to know where it is grown and they have the right to know in which country it was processed or transformed. I believe that is a fundamental entitlement of people throughout Australia when they make choices about the food and the product they are going to buy given that standards vary from one country to another when it comes to manufacturing products across the world. Secondly, it is important to the producers themselves, whether they are a manufacturer in the broad sense or a food producer. Again, having a clear understanding of where the product is made becomes a very important and effective marketing tool that we all know makes a difference to the survival of businesses around the place.

If I can just go back for a moment to the question of the right for consumers to know all about this, the right is important because we know full well in today's day and age, when we live in a global environment, that not all countries produce their food in exactly the same way and under the same safety standards that we do in Australia. When someone makes a choice about what they are going to buy, I believe they have a right to make that choice in the full knowledge of where the product came from, and then they can make a judgement as to whether they feel confident in it or not. With respect to the producers, can I also add this comment: again, they also compete today in a global world and their markets in turn have a right to know where products come from, because they can make exactly the same judgements about where they will source their product and where they will not.

The eight recommendations talk about how we can simplify doing that, and I am fully in support of the recommendations. It will be interesting to see whether they are adopted by government and whether they are modified. In essence, what we tried to do as a committee is simplify the information that is available to consumers so that it makes it a little bit easier for them to make that choice. As part of the survey we had representations from the Choice organisation, who from their surveys claimed that 40 per cent of Australians believe that it is crucial for them to know where products are coming from.

There are a couple of other concerns that I have with respect to this whole process, and I want to very briefly touch on them. The first is the fact that food standards, in particular, are controlled under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand protocol that we have in place—it is an arrangement we have with New Zealand. It is an arrangement that I believe was put into effect in about 1995 or 1996—it is almost 20 years old. At the time it might have seemed and sounded like it was a good idea. The reality is that today we and New Zealand operate as competing countries in respect of a whole range of products. It is my view that the arrangement whereby we work in cooperation with New Zealand may well be appropriate with respect to the food quality standards information that goes on the food but, when it comes to the country-of-origin labelling, the matter ought to be separated—taken out of FSANZ and given to the ACCC to deal with—as was recommended in recommendation 41 under the Blewett inquiry. So I guess my view is: yes, we maintain an arrangement with New Zealand about prescribing the nutritional content and the health information that is required on packaging, but, when it comes to country-of-origin labelling as to where the product comes from, that becomes a separate matter and it ought to go to the ACCC and not to FSANZ.

That would also overcome my second problem relating to the fact that we are indeed competing with New Zealand with respect to a whole range of products. In fact, in the course of the inquiry it became clear that because of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement that we have with New Zealand there is a degree of confusion about what we allow in from New Zealand and what labelling information is required from their products as opposed to what comes from other countries. In other words, in the eyes of some, the New Zealand arrangement allows products to be brought into Australia—you might say under a backdoor arrangement—that we would otherwise not necessarily have allowed into Australia were it not for that arrangement. There were some sureties given that that is not necessarily the case and that the process we use is quite robust and so on, but I am not sure whether that satisfies everyone. My view is that where we see today that we enter into free trade agreements with countries, as New Zealand has done, we are nevertheless competitors on a whole range of products and it would be much easier and much clearer if we actually had our own system in place.

The last comment I will make about all this is that it is true that in recent times we have entered into several free trade agreements with other countries. The primary reason, in my view, for having pushed through with those free trade agreements is to try and open markets to our producers and in particular our primary producers, our farmers and so on. We know full well that Australian product is very much in demand right across the world because of the way we produce things in this country. We even heard stories about how, for our dairy farmers, the price of milk could well go up to about $8 a litre in places like China where those who are bit more affluent would be prepared to pay those kinds of prices for Australian milk because they have more confidence in it than in the milk that comes from other places.

So labelling, and clear labelling, is just as important if we are going to try and help our primary producers as it is to do all of the other things that we are trying to do. It is important to open up markets in other countries if those other markets can also have confidence in the labelling. But it is also important because back here in Australia our consumers are part of the markets that producers are missing out on because the labelling has been blurred over the years.

I think this issue has been talked about for far too long. I think there is enough willingness from the Australian public to say we need a change. That is what drove this inquiry in the first place. We have come up with some recommendations, and I think it is high time that we made the labelling system of products here in Australia much clearer for all.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an opportunity again to support what I think is a very positive report that has been submitted to this place and a lot of work by the committee members concerned. I want to highlight four areas in this report, A clearer message for consumers: report on the inquiry into country of origin labelling for food, which I think are promising and one area that needs to go a little further. I am very impressed with recommendation 1 and the clarification around 'Made in'. Up until now, 'Made in Australia from imported and local ingredients' has been incredibly vague and poorly understood by the general community, and it did need to be improved. This recommendation 1 to provide 'Made in Australia' only for 90 per cent content or above is very positive, and then to use the 50 per cent cut-off for mostly foreign or mostly domestic is absolutely common sense.

There is also obviously a lot of misleading advertising and food labelling. I do not think any of us would disagree that that is an area that we really have to focus on continuously and vigilantly via the statutory authorities that are concerned.

As an eye surgeon, I will support any increase in size of labelling, but in reality packages are self-limited for space. I understand that many food manufacturers are very concerned about that recommendation because already, they would argue, there is a huge amount of information on packaging, and increasing size presents them with certain difficulties. They would point out, I accept, that increasingly technology will play a role here.

My main reason for rising today was first of all to point out that there is still a possibility to generate virtuous positive cycles around country-of-origin labelling. By that I mean having some kind of competition to increase local content, to make the wavering food manufacturer consider putting more local ingredients in because there is a business return on that investment. Currently there is not. Currently, if you can save a buck and use some foreign products, I do not blame food manufacturers for doing just that to maximise their profit.

We have a role here in identifying the most Australian product in its class of foodstuffs that are on the shelf. This is a possibility amongst packaged food, canned food and reconstituted and shelf-stable juices. There is a possibility there to identify the most Australian juice in its class according to the content of what they use. This would simply be—as we currently do nutrient analysis on every food through FSANZ anyway—an option for food manufacturers to list what they intend to stick to as a minimum over the next 12 months. Of course, that can change. But, where they win that competition to have the most Australian ingredients in their product, they deserve some form of recommendation. This would be not a cost for a supermarket to bear but an industry supported, self-regulating ability to identify the most Australian food product in its class. You can do it with technology, but you can also do it by simply highlighting the label with a transparency that makes the price tag yellow instead of white.

When people shop and walk down those two aisles, really, that have Australian product battling to remain on the shelves, it is mostly packaged mixed goods; it is mostly reconstituted shelf-stable juice; and it is canned food. That is where the battle is. The battle is not down in the domestic cleaning products. It is not down in fresh fruit and veg. That is all clearly labelled. In that very small area of the supermarket, we should be able to identify that it is the Heinz baked beans as opposed to someone else's baked beans that are the most Australian baked beans. You do not need to write anything on a label. You just need to have a little flyer or a dangly hanging from the shelf front. Who on earth is going to do that? Heinz will because they have a one to two per cent market advantage for doing it.

It is an $80 billion sector, so what does a one per cent change to Australian consumption of products do in that sector? It makes a big difference—hundreds of millions of dollars for Australian food manufacturers. That is a one per cent change. Plenty of studies have been done on how many people will change their purchasing habits if they know what is Australian, and the jury tells us that it is between three and five per cent. That is a multibillion-dollar dividend if we can make it simple.

Not quite so simple is the IT component. This was recommendation 6, where we talked about bar code technology being optional. I think we have to be tougher than that. I think the least that food and grocery manufacturers can do is be part of a bar code system that Australians are able to use with their smartphones. All of us under the age 70 have got smartphones. Everyone is using them. Many people have two of them. It is time for food and grocery manufacturers to stump up. I am sick and tired of the Food and Grocery Council representing, predominantly, foreign food and grocery arrangements. They put 'Australian' in front, but the AFGC are mostly representing foreign food producers and are probably the greatest stumbling block in getting progress in this area. I know Australians keep asking for more progress, but in reality they go into shopping centres and supermarkets and they do not buy Australian products, because of a combination of brand loyalty and price. We know that. But, as a state, we can make it easier for them to make that shift if they choose to.

Government is not going to do it, but I will tell you who will. It will be the loyalty programs. Coles and Woolies have eight million and seven million customers respectively. I have got their cards in my wallet. Most of us carry those cards. I am not going to fall into the trap of being pulled up for using props, Deputy Speaker, but I carry six cards and two of them are supermarket loyalty cards. I do that to get the fuel discounts. These guys collect an enormous amount of data on my shopping preferences. There are enormous opportunities for me to opt in, with these profiles, and tell Coles or Woolworths that I have an interest in low-fructose foods, high-energy foods, low-cholesterol foods or Australian-country-of-origin products. It should be a relatively simple matter for me then to be able to walk with my phone and scan what I am buying or wirelessly download from my loyalty program customer profile everything that I have bought over the last five years. They could tell me what my preferences are, and then I should be receiving SMSs every time constituent analysis changes, country of origin of a product changes or price changes. If there is a special on, I should be able to get it as an SMS on my phone as I enter the store.

This is probably five years away, but, if that is where we are heading, as a state we need to provision for that. We need to provision for that possibility. If I care about Australian-produced goods, all that data is already collected, because already the supermarket loyalty programs know the constituent analysis of every food. They have done that already for FSANZ. They know the star labelling of every food, because we have now got that agreed through the states and territories. It would be a relatively simple matter for them to connect the star ratings with the foods and then allow customers to talk about what they want to know about what is on the shelves. In the end, the state may have to do very little but facilitate these programs to occur. I am excited about those potentials and, if it can help Australians buy a few more country-of-origin labelled products, we may be able to get around some of the more complex areas of labelling and mandating of printing of information on scarce label space and have people empowered, through smartphone devices, to do it.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in relation to report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry's inquiry into country-of-origin labelling of food. I want to congratulate the chair, the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and all the committee members for all the work they have done on this committee, because I think it is a very important report. Country-of-origin labelling is obviously a very contentious issue, particularly for regional members of this place—and I note the presence of two regional members in the chamber beside me at the moment.

This is a contentious issue which prompts very passionate responses, but I particularly want to speak in relation to one of the recommendations in the report as it relates to seafood. Recommendation 7 is:

The Committee recommends that the Northern Territory's country of origin labelling of seafood in the food service sector be referred to the Council of Australian Governments for consideration.

This is a very important recommendation for my electorate, the electorate of Gippsland, and in particular for the Lakes Entrance fishing industry, which has been one of the leading advocates, on behalf of fishermen, to improve the system of labelling for seafood purchased in the food service sector.

My concern—and I have raised this before in the House—is that it is very likely that Australian fishermen and anyone who eats seafood in a restaurant, club or bar is currently being ripped off throughout Australia, apart from perhaps in the Northern Territory. That is because the country of origin of the product you are being served is never provided to you when you are in that restaurant environment. It is high time that we end the rip-offs and rorts and tell consumers exactly what they are eating.

If I go to a restaurant—and I am partial to seafood—and I order flathead tails, I want a delightfully sweet fish more than likely caught by a Lakes Entrance trawler fishermen under sustainable conditions and a highly regulated industry. I do not want bass from the Mekong Delta smothered in batter and plonked on a plate of deceit and passed off as some fresh Australian seafood. I encourage Australians to take this challenge next time they order seafood from a club or a bar and actually ask the waiter or waitress, 'Where did this come from?' Chances are, he or she will not be able to answer the question and no-one in the kitchen will be able to answer the question. I do not blame them, because they are not required to answer the question. What concerns me is that there are fish being passed off as fresh Australian seafood in many of our restaurants and clubs at the moment when they are not. I think the Northern Territory system is a far better way of managing what I believe is a major concern for the dining public but also for fishermen.

I am not just concerned for the diners in these restaurants; I am also concerned that fishermen are not getting a fair return for their wild catch or farmed product. The Australian aquaculture industry's reputation for sustainably managed and environmentally sustainable fisheries means those fishermen would be able to attract a premium for their seafood if it was fully declared to the dining public in advance at a restaurant or club. We know, in many cases, that fish is sourced from overseas, with about 70 per cent of Australia seafood being imported. There is currently no obligation whatsoever to tell the diners in these establishments where the seafood has come from.

When I talk to industry representatives, they tell me that they are not against imports by any stretch of the imagination. They simply want country-of-origin labelling to provide fairness in the industry and to ensure that customers are well informed and can make an informed choice to buy Australian product and perhaps even pay a little bit more if that is their choice. They are concerned that they are not getting full value for the Australian product.

I would like to quote from a submission that the Lakes Entrance Fishermens Co-Operative made to a previous government inquiry on this issue. This is from Dale Sumner, the chief executive, who has been a long-term campaigner on this issue. He said:

Given the strong consumer demand for Australian seafood it is incredibly frustrating and concerning that imported seafood is able to be sold without any declaration regarding its origin being made at the plate. This is a significant issue for both the seafood processing sector and more importantly the consumer.

The current failure of labelling laws in regard to cooked seafood is contributing to an increasing number of consumers losing confidence in what seafood they are eating. Consumers need to be comfortable eating seafood and be provided a clear understanding of where it originated.

It is our preference that the specific country of origin should be labelled however would be satisfied if as a minimum “Imported” was … on all seafood sold cooked to ensure that the consumer has the opportunity to make an informed decision when purchasing seafood.

He goes on to argue:

The venues that are selling seafood on their menus simply for profit are our concern; the consumers in these venues are being ripped off.

We have had a trial in place. The inquiry report correctly refers to that process in the Northern Territory. It has basically been a massive trial that all Australia could learn from.

I accept that the recommendation is to send this to the Council of Australian Governments. I hope they take it seriously. I am fearful that COAG is a place where good ideas go to die, but I am hoping this time that the Council of Australian Governments take it seriously and looks very closely at the Northern Territory example. It has been a six-year trial. It has worked on the ground. Most of the concerns that have been brought up by the restaurant industry and others have been countered by the Northern Territory process. They have found there is very little cost for the small business sector at all. They have found that the average cost of compliance with the legislation is in the order of $600, not the tens of thousands of dollars that was argued by the industry when it was first put forward.

I think it is an important issue. It is certainly an important issue for the fishermen in the electorate of Gippsland. It is also an important issue, I think, for consumers across Australia. Again, I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry for the work they have done and for what I think is a very valuable report.

With a little bit of indulgence by the House, I want to comment just very briefly on an announcement today by the leader of the Nationals in Victoria, who has announced his resignation, which I think is important news and I bring the House's attention to it. Peter Ryan, who has been the leader in Victoria for many years now, has announced his resignation as the leader. It follows the weekend's election result, which obviously was not the result that my party was looking for. I want to acknowledge that Peter has been a terrific leader for the Nationals in Victoria and has been one of the more formidable campaigners in our party's history, with several great wins against the odds in seats like Benalla, Mildura, Moreland and Gippsland East. He has been at his best when his back has been against the wall, and he has helped our party recover to a strong position in the parliament. He has been a formidable campaigner. He is a very robust debater on the floor of the parliament but one of the gentlemen of the parliament, prepared to shake hands with the opposition at the end of the day. He has been well respected on both sides.

The National Party in Victoria will select their new leader on Wednesday, I believe. I note the presence of my good friend Mr Cobb, who I think may have an interest in the outcome. We may both be speculating on the same potential future leader. With that indulgence, I commend the committee for its work and the inquiry. I look forward to COAG taking up the challenge of bringing some sense to our food labelling laws, particularly as they relate to seafood prepared and cooked in our restaurants, pubs and clubs around Australia.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion of Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, and I congratulate him and his standing committee, because this is a longstanding issue. It is not an easy one, because there are conflicting interests. Obviously it is enormously important, if it happens in Australia, that there are jobs involved in the packaging. Even more so, it is important if it is processed in Australia, because that also involves jobs, equipment and everything that goes with it. So there are competing interests here, with those who want to import and package; import and process; or import, package and process.

But I must say that those things are surmounted by the fact that the most important thing is—we are talking food here—where it is grown. Obviously the various retailers, be they the supermarkets or whoever, do not like constraint at all. Basically, they would rather not have too many fences around the way labelling happens at all. And it is also true that there is a large percentage, larger than most of us want to admit, who really are more concerned with the price than where it is grown, processed, packaged or whatever.

We are talking food here; we are not talking fibre, cotton, wool or timber. In fact, it is quite likely fibres will be exported, processed overseas and come back again as an article. That is nowhere near the case when you are talking food. Whether you are talking bread or whether you are talking biscuits, no matter what you are talking about, the chances of Australian product being exported, processed as food and coming back is far less than it is with other agricultural products—or steel, iron ore or coal, whatever you want to talk about. It is far less likely. But the one thing you know is that, if it is grown here, the chances are it is processed and it is packaged here. That means that the government does not have the same responsibility—because it is government's responsibility—to be sure that, wherever it comes from, it is done according to Australian standards. It does not always happen, but it is our responsibility.

I want to congratulate Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, and his committee for making a genuine and, by and large, very good attempt to come to terms with the issue—because, come to terms with it, we must. It is too important that the information is there for producers and for a lot of retailers—not all but a lot of retailers—who care about the quality of the food they buy and those who care that they support, as much as is feasible, Australian producers, packagers and processors. I do not believe, as this report says, that it costs more for anyone to use the particular labelling that they are suggesting rather than any other sort of labelling.

Country of origin food labelling has been the topic of many public reviews and unsuccessful legislative reform attempts not just in the last 10 years but for far longer than I have been in this place. I would say it has been a big issue for the last 30 years. In those days, far more processing of food to be exported happened in Australia, let alone to be consumed domestically. In March this year another report was ordered on country of origin food labelling. I think the time has come for us to really look at this seriously—and not be too interested in supermarkets or various importers but deal with it honestly. The report found that consumers and peak advocacy groups claim there is confusion about the various country of origin labelling claims for food products in Australia. Anyone who disagrees with that is certainly wearing blinkers.

I think a certain level of confusion also exists for food producers and manufacturers, leading to compliance issues—and I do not think that is an unfair statement either. The level of dissatisfaction with the existing labelling framework indicates that a system which is designed to inform and guide industry and consumers needs to be overhauled. You cannot make it as simple as it can be and simply say that we just have a bar of green or yellow for Australia and black for what is not Australian. If you do it on quantity, we only have to look at, for example, Brazilian juice. It comes over here as an extract and it is one per cent extract and 99 per cent Australian water. So that would be false. It would not be Australian. If you do it on value, then it becomes 99 per cent Brazilian and one per cent Australian. So there are complications in what some people want to make a very simple issue.

Rowan and his team, with the support of the relevant ministers, embarked on an enquiry on this issue and they held hearings in most of the capital cities in Australia. I think most of their recommendations showed a very genuine attempt to come to grips with the issue. It became clear during the inquiry that country of origin of food is not important to everyone but it is very important to Australia's producers and it is certainly important when it comes to the fact that, if it is grown, processed and packaged in Australia, there are no issues. I agree with the committee's findings 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 and accurate information to consumers who wish to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers.

The recommendations that have been put before us will not have any significant negative impact on Australian producers or manufacturers and will provide common-sense information that consumers can understand. I am not going to go through those recommendations—they are a matter of record for anyone who wants to look at the report—but I will repeat that this is an issue that has been around for a long, long time. I think the vested interests, who are pretty obvious—and they do not need me to run through them again—and do not want it so defined probably need to button up and just bear with it. There is one thing for sure: if it is grown in Australia, if it is processed in Australia and if it is packaged in Australia, then we know, as the Chinese know, that it is a very good product.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity today to endorse the report which has a clear message for consumers produced by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. This is the first involvement I have had with a committee and the production of a report. It was a thoroughly satisfying experience, and I think it is the best of what we can be in this place—where members from all sides of the political divide come together and make a contribution. I am very proud to have been involved and I look forward to being involved in many more reports in the future.

Country–of-origin food labelling is a critically important issue, particularly as consumers become more discerning about what they eat and where their food comes from. As information technology becomes more available, people can access that information more readily and access adverse information where they fear that food may be dangerous.

It is a very important report, particularly for producers in my electorate. The horticultural industry around Warren Blackwood, which is making giant strides in establishing its brand under the Southern Forests Food Council, is one of many primary-producing organisations around my electorate who will benefit from stronger and more robust food labelling.

In addition to that, the recently signed free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan also mean that we need more robust country-of-origin labelling, particularly so that Australian food being exported into those markets can be identified as such.

In the lead-up to the report, we were hearing of widespread dissatisfaction from all sectors of the industry with the current arrangements and the difficulty in defining the safe harbour arrangements as they currently stood. The terms of reference that we finally arrived at and were given by the ministers asked us to investigate, in the first instance, whether the current country-of-origin labelling system provided enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

The second term of reference was whether Australia's country-of-origin labelling laws are being complied with and what, if any, are the practical limitations to compliance. The third term of reference was whether improvements could be made, including to simplify the current system and reduce the compliance burden. The fourth term of reference was whether Australia's country-of-origin laws are being circumvented by staging imports through third countries; and, five, the impact of Australia's international trade obligations of any proposed changes that we might propose.

I admit to be being a little sceptical that we would come up with anything from this review, given that there had been many reviews conducted in the past and most of them ended up going nowhere. I have to say that, given the enthusiastic leadership of the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, as the chairman of the committee and the excellent work of the other committee members—and I will not name them all—as I have said previously, it was a pleasure working with them and we have given a new dimension to this issue.

I also believe that we have developed a constructive set of recommendations which, if adopted, will give some very clear guidelines to consumers, reassurance to those of us who care about the origins of the food we eat and give Australian producers the opportunity to better identify their locally grown food.

I thoroughly enjoyed the evidence-gathering process where we took evidence in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, where we did a field trip to some of the producers who were directly affected. The whole committee appreciated the fact that these people took the time to come and give evidence. We also appreciated getting a broader understanding of the issues around the nation.

I want to run through the recommendations we have come up with and give a small explanation of them. Recommendation 1 from the report is that the committee recommends that the Australian government implement the following country-of-origin labelling safe harbours. 'Grown in' represents 100 per cent content of the country specified—in other words if it is claimed that it is grown in Australia, then consumers can be confident that it is 100 per cent grown in Australia. 'A product of' indicates 90 per cent of the content from the country specified. This is where some of the more important changes that we have suggested come in: 'made in from Australian ingredients' indicates 90 per cent from the country specified. 'Made in', for example Australia, 'from mostly local ingredients' specifies more than 50 per cent Australian content; and 'made in' Australia, in this particular example, 'from mostly imported ingredients' specifies less than 50 per cent Australian content. That is an important recommendation because it does specify much more clearly than the current system what those specifications are.

Recommendation 2 is that the committee recommends that the Australian government amend the standard 1.2.9 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code will allow for the prescription of the country-of-origin label text information on packaged foods be increased in size when compared with the surrounding text on a product label. It came up many times in evidence that the country-of-origin labelling was in very small text amongst much bigger advertising and promotional text. That is another important recommendation.

Recommendation 3 is that the committee recommends that the Australian government increase the scrutiny of products with mostly or all imported ingredients that use misleading Australian symbols, icons and imagery. Once again, evidence was presented on several occasions of imported product that used the Australian flag or the kangaroo for the koala to give the obviously misleading impression that it was an Australian product when it was wholly imported from another country.

Recommendation 4 is that the committee recommends the introduction of visual descriptor that reflects the safe harbour thresholds of Australian ingredients in the content of the product. A very simple system of a symbol, rather than a text or in addition to text, so that shoppers in a supermarket aisle can very easily pick up a product and identify the country of origin, specifically Australian.

I would also like to mention recommendation 6—I will not mention every recommendation—that we voluntarily institute a bar code so people with mobile phones can access the bar code and get all the information they require while they are in the supermarket. As we have said previously, people are looking for much more information on the source of the food that they eat. The rest of the recommendations are on the record, and I would urge people to get hold of the report and look at it. I would like to close today by thanking the secretariat for the wonderful work that they did throughout the process—in particular the secretary Julia Morris; the secretary of the inquiry, Anthony Overs; senior research officer Lauren Wilson; research officer Leonie Bury; and administrative officer Prudence Zuber. I will close by endorsing the report for the parliament. I am very proud of the little part I played in putting it together.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for O'Connor is being a little bit modest. I am sure he had a big part to play in this very important report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. This food labelling report is important, and I know how important agriculture and food labelling is to the member for Durack and her constituents. I represent the Riverina, one of the great food bowls of this nation—I would argue the greatest food bowl of this nation, but it is certainly one of the most important. There is very little that we do not grow in the Riverina. Pawpaw, pineapples and sugar are excluded, but we grow just about everything else, and much of it is sent overseas. There are a lot of people in my electorate, some very vocal, who are very, very concerned about food labelling—as they should be. Bart Brighenti is one, a citrus grower in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area who emails me on an almost daily basis to decry the food labelling of this nation.

There have been a number of inquiries into Australia's food labelling over the past decade. I am sure that this report is going to go some of the way to clearing up the anomalies, that it is going to go some of the way to helping to improve the situation. We will never get something that is absolutely perfect for everybody; we will never get something that all the citrus growers, all the wineries and all those important food-processing factories are ever going to be entirely comfortable with—obviously, in conjunction with our supermarkets. Whenever we change food-labelling laws it comes at a cost to supermarkets, they claim. Then that cost is put on to the products on the supermarket shelves, and obviously is then borne by shoppers, including families, who go to buy their daily and weekly supplies.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry has produced a report which sends a clearer message for consumers into country-of-origin labelling for food. I would like to commend the committee, which was very ably led by the member for Grey—a very good member and a very thorough member who is very particular about detail—on this comprehensive inquiry and this very useful report. I note that Michelle Landry, the member for Capricornia, was on the committee. She too is a very good member. I was in Rockhampton the other day. The agriculture that they are producing there also needs good food-labelling laws. I had the good fortune to conduct an infrastructure roundtable meeting in Rockhampton, and the member for Capricornia played a vital part in that. She is to be commended for her ongoing role to better food-labelling laws and for her ongoing commitment to agriculture.

As the committee noted when embarking on this inquiry, the regulation of country-of-origin labelling for foods has been subject to reform in recent years, but confusion remains. Indeed, in his recent green paper on agricultural competitiveness, the Minister for Agriculture noted that the public still finds country-of-origin labelling confusing. When you go into a supermarket and look at the various food labels on all the products, I can appreciate what it is like for mums and dads. They have got their kids with them; they want to buy Australian goods that are grown here, made here, packaged here, canned here; but the trouble is sometimes you are damned if you can actually even find out where the product comes from. You have kids screaming at your hip, you are trying to push a shopping trolley around, you are trying to make sure you get all the things on your list, and of course you need to get home and cook dinner and do all those sorts of things. There are lots of pressures when you go to the supermarket without having the added burden of understanding the food labelling. Sometimes it is in a particular type size and you can hardly read it. It is all very confusing. The objective of any country-of-origin labelling framework must be to give consumers clear and discernible information about where their food is grown without imposing unnecessary red tape on agribusinesses, unnecessary red tape on supermarkets, unnecessary red tape that is going to cost the person at the end of the line—that is, the consumer—even more money.

It is easy in principle, but it can be challenging in practice when a mix of imported and locally-grown produce is involved. To that end, I would commend the work done by Senator John Williams, the Nationals senator for New South Wales, who has been on the case of country-of-origin labelling for as long as I can remember. I am not speaking out of turn here: he has often gone into the party room and made good submissions, and I know he too would have talked to the member for Capricornia about this report. He would have had input into making sure that food is correctly labelled and making sure that those people who are producing the food and canning the food understand that their concerns are being heard in this, this parliament of the nation.

The committee is to be commended for its first recommendation which, I believe, makes some quite sensible delineations between produce that is grown in Australia—being 100 per cent content—to that made in Australia from imported ingredients, which involves less than 50 per cent Australian content. The use of a sliding scale as a system of safe harbours—as set out in recommendation 1—strikes a good balance between clarity for consumers and minimisation of red tape for business. Such a system of safe harbours would, I think, be assisted by the use of visual descriptors, as the committee has recommended in recommendation 4. Of course, symbols can be misused, and a recognition of this no doubt sits behind the committee's recommendation that greater scrutiny of misuse is required.

Increasingly, people want to know where their produce is coming from. More often than not, people want to buy local whenever and wherever they can. There are a very good recommendations—eight in total. Recommendation 3, for example, recommends:

...that the Australian Government increase its scrutiny of products with mostly or all imported ingredients that use misleading Australian symbols, icons and imagery.

That is so important. We should not have foods coming in that are pinching the good old kangaroo, or other similar Australian symbols—the outline of the nation, including Tasmania of course—and trying to pass them off as, or con consumers that they are, Australian made or Australian grown. In recommendation 5, the committee recommends:

…that the Australian Government, in conjunction with industry and consumer advocacy groups, develop and implement an education program designed to raise awareness of country of origin labelling rules, regulations, requirements and impacts, for consumers and industry. The program should be developed and implemented following any changes that have been adopted in response to this report.

That is important. We need to get the message out there. We need to be educating everybody from youngsters up about the importance of home-grown food, the safeguards that are in place, and the fact that it is best in most cases to eat produce that is coming from local areas.

As the member for Solomon takes the chair, she will be interested to know that recommendation 7 of this particular report recommends:

…that the Northern Territory’s country of origin labelling of seafood in the food service sector be referred to the Council of Australian Governments for consideration.

That is important. I know what a great advocate the member for Solomon is for Northern Territorians. I know also how important it is that food labelling is correct, because we have discussed a number of times how important it is to have correct and proper food labelling. I know that as a mother the Deputy Speaker would also know how important it is on most occasions—if not all occasions—to be seen to be and to be doing the 'buy Australia' thing, and to be loyal to our Australian producers and our Australian farmers, who are the very best at what they do. We grow the freshest and best food available. We all know that. But it is also important that we get the labelling right. I cannot stress that enough.

I again commend the committee and all of those on it, including Labor members opposite and the Independent member for Indi, for the work that they have done in endeavouring to get better food labelling laws in this country. It is so important. It is important for farmers, it is important for agribusinesses and it is also very important for the supermarket end of the chain.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, I am very pleased to rise to speak on the report into the inquiry into the country of origin labelling for food. I acknowledge the very good leadership of Mr Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, as chair of the committee, and all members for their contributions. I agree with the comments made earlier by the member for O'Connor: it was a very positive, satisfying bipartisan inquiry to be involved in. The work of the secretariat was invaluable, and I thank them for their commitment and professionalism, and I believe the quality of the report is excellent.

An inquiry such as this can only be meaningful with strong stakeholder involvement and consultation, and I believe we achieved just that. The inquiry received more than 60 submissions, held seven public hearings and spent some time visiting food manufacturers.

So why have the inquiry? Why is it that a number of inquiries have already looked at Australia's food-labelling system and yet the consumer, who seeks to be informed about certain qualities of food, still remains confused, uncertain or unclear? This inquiry has arisen due to further alleged high levels of confusion not only amongst consumers but also amongst some manufacturers. For the consumer, this can mean that they are consuming things that they do not want to eat or did not intend to eat. For the manufacturer, it may mean that they have unintentionally fallen foul of the law.

Amongst the five terms of reference, the committee inquiry paid particular attention to whether the country-of-origin labelling system provides enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. My interest as a lawyer is, in particular, in protecting the consumer so that, when a consumer goes to the supermarket and picks up a product that says it is grown in Australia, the consumer can be sure that this product indeed comprises 100 per cent Australian content. They deserve nothing less. That is what I care about: the consumer having informed choice, especially in this day and age, when consumers are more and more focused on the quality of the food that they serve their families. If they want to support Australian farmers and Australian food manufacturers then the Australian law should assist them with this—not hinder or cause confusion but actually assist them to make these purchasing decisions.

The Australian Consumer Law, as it stands, specifies which foods must have country-of-origin labelling and provides some guiding principles for the industry. It does not prescribe explicit rules with regard to labelling but simply states that the labels cannot be false, misleading or deceptive. The recommendations from this inquiry will add strength and clarity within that existing Consumer Law framework.

The committee is of the view that country-of-origin food labelling should provide crystal-clear information to consumers who wish to make their own choices to purchase Australian food or, indeed, not to buy Australian food; they may want to buy only Italian tomatoes, and that is their right. Our report and recommendations strengthen consumer protection in the area of country-of-origin food labelling and, at the same time, do not present impediments to importers.

A clear er message for consumers, the aptly named report into country-of-origin food labelling, has eight recommendations which give consumers informed choice. I might just give a small flavour—pardon the pun—of some of the recommendations in the report. Recommendation 1 is clearly the most important and is on the safe harbours for labelling: 'grown in' will stipulate that 100 per cent of content is from the country specified, whereas 'product of' stipulates that 90 per cent of content is from the country specified. Recommendation 2 allows for certain relevant text on packaged food to be increased in size so that we can read it; we do not have to squint. I am sure we have all been found in the supermarket aisles squinting at very tiny writing on the packaging, so it only makes sense that it should be big enough for the consumer to read it. Recommendation 3 increases the scrutiny of misleading Australian symbols or imagery. That is so we do not get the wrong impression and are not misled. That is what the consumer deserves. Recommendation 5 is to develop and implement an education program regarding country-of-origin labelling rules et cetera for both consumers and industry so that we can all understand the rules, regulations and labelling system better. There are various other very important recommendations which I will not refer to now, including on bar code technology and so on, which I commend.

The report urges the federal government to make major changes to stipulate the level of local and imported ingredients in food products. I commend the report and its recommendations, which examine the options for improvement to country-of-origin labelling law and policy. I trust that the recommendations will be embraced by my government so that we will relieve the frustrations, confusion and level of public angst amongst those for whom country-of-origin food labelling is a salient topic and, more importantly, provide protection for consumers and also support the very important Australian farmers and manufacturers. I commend this report to the House.

Debate adjourned.