Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) revelations that certain brands of imported frozen berries grown and/or packaged in China are suspected of having infected Australians with Hepatitis A through contamination with faecal matter;

(b) that Food Standards Australia and New Zealand presently only require 5 per cent of frozen berries imported into Australia to be tested and even then, not for Hepatitis A;

(c) that local berry growers are subject to demanding chemical and biological testing and inspection procedures at the growers' expense;

(d) that consumers who want to know where their food comes from face confusing country of origin labelling, for instance, the words 'made in Australia' can mean that all of the ingredients are made or grown elsewhere but are packaged in Australia;

(e) that this is an important public health issue demanding a strong Government response in the areas of food standards and food labelling; and

(f) that consumers are entitled to have:

  (i) confidence that the food they buy for themselves and their children is safe; and

  (ii) detailed information as to its ingredients and origins; and

(2) calls on the Government to ensure comprehensive testing of food imports to Australia and appropriate labelling of food with regard to ingredients and origin.

I am pleased to bring this motion forward for debate. It relates to a serious health issue which raises important questions about food standard regulations, screening and labelling. In the last month there has been widespread concern in relation to contaminated berries imported from China that have so far been linked with 21 confirmed cases of hepatitis A. While, fortunately, events like this are rare, the gravity of this case—where thousands have been exposed to potential infection of a serious disease and where further cases of hepatitis are likely to develop—demands that we look closely at the shortcomings in our food safety framework.

At present, imported fruits are classified as surveillance foods—meaning that only five per cent are randomly tested by the Department of Agriculture in order to comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Fruit is principally tested for pesticides and even microbial testing of supposed risk foods is limited to bacteria that are the most common cause of food borne illness. As a result, that testing does not extend to viruses like hepatitis A. This standard compares poorly with the rigour and the cost of screening and inspection that local berry growers face.

The contamination that has occurred has caused wide community discussion of Australia's framework of food safety precautions. The starting point when it comes to imported food is the recognition that not all countries can match Australia's general quality of agricultural practices and surveillance standards. But, in recognising that it is impossible for any food production or importation process to be absolutely risk free, there is clearly room for improvement. This could include the classification of an expanded range of high-risk foods, the testing of larger sample sizes and the enhancement of screening technologies. I also note that food safety experts have suggested that there should be independent auditing of growers and factories overseas in some circumstances.

The Department of Agriculture has requested a review of the risk status of frozen berries from Food Standards Australia New Zealand, which I hope will address some of these concerns. Unfortunately, the recent cuts of 280 jobs at FSANZ hardly inspires confidence in terms of the regulator's capacity to provide adequate supervision and guidance. This appears to be another case of a government intent on hacking away at key threads in a web of sensible protection simply because of its inclination to regard all regulation as dispensable red tape. Let us remember that, at the very dawn of this government, the office and chief of staff of the Assistant Minister for Health were involved in seeking to undermine the introduction of food labelling designed to allow Australians to better understand the nutritional value of the foods we eat. I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture have realised, if only belatedly, the critical importance of effective food labelling and food regulation.

I would also suggest that in our rush to sign the suite of new trade agreements we have neglected to protect provisions that help ensure broad public safety. It is simply not good enough to allow companies to self-regulate when our health is at stake, and yet there are aspects of recently and blindly celebrated free trade agreements that give foreign companies the ability to contest aspects of Australia's regulatory environment and seek judgements from investor state dispute resolution tribunals that have been shown to be flawed and compromised in their decision making. How soon will it be before the health of Australian citizens is jeopardised by this loss of Australian sovereignty?

On a number of occasions I have spoken in this place about Australia's food-labelling laws, which remain inadequate and misleading. This area of regulation has failed to keep pace with a sophisticated consumer culture in which food choices are rightly made on the basis of environmental, political, animal welfare and wider health concerns. Informed decisions cannot be based on information that is cloaked in ambiguous language or built on partial truths. It is not asking too much to expect that 'made in Australia' should mean what an ordinary person would understand by that phrase. It is not too much to expect that companies which do the right thing, for instance when it comes to genuinely free-range farming, have the benefit of making that claim for their produce and are protected from competitors who seek to misrepresent their own poor animal welfare practices.

We are fortunate in Australia that food borne illness and infectious disease outbreaks are comparatively rare. That will not remain the case through complacency. It is a state of affairs that is put at risk when the government does not take the proper role of regulation seriously. It is a state of affairs jeopardised by the pursuit of low-yielding free trade agreements that put corporate and market interests ahead of public and environmental health.

The hepatitis A contamination of frozen berries is a reminder that our food standards, labelling and public health protection framework need to be stronger and more effective and not more poorly resourced and subject to the interference of foreign commercial interests. That is why I urge the government to improve and enhance Australia's regulatory capacity in this area and deliver the kind of honesty and clarity in labelling that the Australian community has for many years been calling for.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

What a spray! The member just managed to attack foreign interests, corporate greed and free trade agreements all in the one brushstroke and all over this single case of contaminated berries. Coming from a place like Capricornia, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would know just how important it is to be promoting both the consumption and the growing of local products. But this is not quite so simple. This is about a platform that is ultimately about promoting trade and cooperation between nations—that growing trade has been of benefit for all nations—but also understanding that you have to be able to have a certain level of surveillance for safety.

Through listening very carefully and picking through the rhetoric, I did pick up some suggestions from the opposition speaker: test more foods more often, have more audits and, where possible, use some new technology. You really have to ask a group like FSANZ and the Department of Agriculture exactly what is going to be productive and effective. It is okay to say that only five per cent of consignments are tested—but that is not five per cent of all packets of frozen berries, don't forget. It is very hard to test an entire chunk of frozen berries and be able to say that there is no hepatitis A anywhere in that chunk of frozen berries. There is probably a couple of contaminated droplets in there with no guarantee you will find it.

Most of this testing is on residue products, which can be seen through an entire consignment. It is far more uncertain trying to find hepatitis A. So before we mislead anyone, there have been no more cases of hepatitis A so far this year than in any other year. We are not facing a tsunami of nasty hepatitis A, spirited in here by some foreign country that needs to be pushed back. We need to have a little bit more of an understanding of where risks are, and respond accordingly.

So, before we impugn FSANZ, who simply work out the appropriate recommendations, and before we drag in staff changes to FSANZ as being the cause of the hepatitis disaster—which of course it is not; and I see the opposition speaker now waving her hands from side to side saying that she was not suggesting that—let us remember that they simply make the expert guidelines upon which the Department of Agriculture and others carry out the tests. So it is not just FSANZ that should be picked on here. If you talk to FSANZ, they will say to you, 'In these areas we do not see the staffing changes as in any way affecting the ability to make our recommendations. Recommendations are taken, ultimately, by Agriculture, who carry them out.'

There is, of course, the bigger picture that is very popular—and that is talking about better country-of-origin labelling and more information for customers. I am sure on that point we can start to agree, because it is less of a hysterical reaction to what happened over the last month.

I note, also, that the one single case here in the ACT is a good friend of ours, Mr Callum Denness, who actually works in this building. We wish him well in his recovery from what is potentially—putatively—related to the berry incident. That is very close to home for many of us who work in this building. I think it is important not to get carried away by this immediate reaction to blame other countries and the poor quality of their imports. Ultimately we are tied, through very productive and successful free trade agreements that give both countries in this bilateral arrangement a lot of advantages, and through WTO obligations. Those obligations say that we should not, for the purpose of nationalism, ever be running interference on a foreign product simply because it is from overseas. So let us understand that instead of just reacting and saying, 'Start testing every packet of berries'—and there was a real hint of that in what the opposition speaker was saying—we need also to realise that if standards fall and there is a genuine health risk, there is every opportunity under current law to prosecute that particular issue. If health standards are at risk you can take action—and this is a perfect example of where that can occur.

When it comes to where our food comes from, there is some level of agreement. I think it is utterly inadequate that you can just say the word 'imported' and that customers do not deserve to know where from. I sense that that will be an area of progress. Over the previous one- or two-year period the rolling average of how much foreign content appears in a mixed food should be the subject of labelling on a packet. If you have room on a packet to say 'imported', you have room to list the largest three providers of that imported component of your product—whether it is above or below 50 per cent. There is general agreement that just flipping 'imported' and 'local' once it tips over 50 per cent is also inadequate.

I just leave this debate today by saying that ultimately giving people 20/20 vision, incredible foresight and a PhD in food science is never going to lead every Australian to read packages and labels. We keep squeezing these food manufacturers for the entire Wikipedia to be printed on the back—and sometimes the front—of products. In the end, Australians want to know, in every area—given that only 15 per cent of what is on the shelves of supermarkets comes from Australia—right at the margins, what are the producers that have a greater propensity to use Australian products, when there is a choice to do so. In the end perhaps we need something simpler, which is to identify, in categories where there is an Australian component, those companies using the most Australian product in their class. That will be a very productive and fertile area, and one which I am sure both sides can agree on.

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

Firstly, I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I say in response to the member for Bowman—I heard his contribution—that rather than attacking the member for Fremantle and misrepresenting what she said, perhaps he should look back at his own government's stand last week where, led by the Prime Minister, they announced measures that effectively take on board the very concerns that the member for Fremantle has alluded to and raised in the debate today. I welcome those announcements by the government because it shows that we can do more. The real question is: why haven't we done it earlier?

Indeed, it took 21 cases—and there may well be more—of hepatitis A to break out in this country before the political leaders across both sides of politics, including in state governments, finally stood up and took note of what is happening. To date, the representations made by the member for Fremantle, by me, and by many others in this parliament, have effectively fallen on deaf ears. And all we have had in response is lip-service or minor changes that have not given consumers the confidence that they are entitled to.

There are two issues in respect of this matter, and both the member for Fremantle and the member for Bowman talked about them. The first is to do with biosecurity; the second is to do with the labelling system and, in particular, country-of-origin labelling. Only last week in this very chamber I spoke about those matters. When I did so, I called for: firstly, clearer country-of-origin labelling; secondly, more screening; thirdly, equal standards being applied to exporters and importers; and, fourthly, transfer of oversight of country-of-origin labelling to the ACCC, which is something that the Blewett inquiry recommended but was never taken up by our side of politics at the time.

World demand for food is growing, and we know that as a result of that we are going to see not only more food transferred from one country to another but also producers of food looking to whatever methods they can to speed up the way in which they produce that food. We will see greater use of pesticides and chemicals. We will also see more insanitary conditions and places that we would not grow food in being used to grow food because of the sheer necessity to do so. That includes the way we grow our poultry and pigs around the world—I have raised this on previous occasions—and the use of intensive animal growing, which also raises real health concerns. We are going to see more of this and that is exactly why we need to be more cautious and more vigilant in the way we manage both the importer food coming into this country and how it is grown here.

We know that Australian farmers and the Australian agricultural sector—which, from memory, is worth $38 billion a year to this country—could be very much at risk if we get disease that is currently not here coming into the country. Once that happens, it will decimate some of the growers in this country, so we have a lot of dollars at stake and, just as importantly, the health of our citizens at stake. They quite rightly have an expectation that governments will act in a responsible way to ensure that their health is put at minimum risk. We know that in Australia we have a marketing advantage to both our own consumers and overseas consumers because of our clean green image. It is in our national interest to ensure that that is in no way damaged and that that perception both here and abroad remains intact.

With respect to the country-of-origin labelling, consumers have a right to know where a product comes from, because, if they at least know where a product comes from, they can also take on board personal responsibility for what they purchase and consume. Many consumers I speak to know full well countries that they would prefer not to buy food from, but they cannot make that choice if the labelling is not clear. We have been calling for that to be made clearer for years and years, and it is good to see that we are slowly moving in that direction.

The last thing I want to touch on is this: in Australia when food is produced we have local, state and federal governments all of whom apply health regulations to the production of that food. We have no guarantee that the same processes apply for food that comes from overseas. Even if we do get told that it does, we do not have inspectors at the other end making sure that people are complying in the same way that compliance is met here in Australia. I have been through food producers in Australia—packing sheds and real food producers in the city—and I can assure you I have no qualms at all about buying food from producers that produce in Australia, because I know that they meet their obligations.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fremantle. I am sure the member for Fremantle is embarrassed to have to bring this on after six long, and somewhat hard, years of the previous Labor government. We know what they did in this area: a duck egg. I am very pleased that the Minister for Agriculture has taken this on and that we are going to have something actually done on the inadequacies of our food labelling after six years of inaction.

In the time available I would like to make what I would say is the free market case to do something on labelling. We know that we often talk about free markets, and it is not that we have absolutely zero government regulations. For the free market to work efficiently, we have prohibitions on coercion, on misuse of market power and on misleading or deceptive conduct. The simple reason that we do so is that, in any market, the more informed a buyer and seller are, the more efficiently a market works. The primary object of our labelling laws should be to ensure that there is nothing misleading about the labelling.

Let us look at some of the labelling that we allow at the moment. I purchased a packet of frozen raspberries from one of the supermarkets recently. I looked on the side of the packet and it said 'Packed in Australia from imported ingredients'. That is very nice—but imported from where? That is the question. Firstly, as a consumer, you have the right to know where ingredients are imported from. Secondly, as a food producer—and I speak to someone who has worked for 20 years in designing, producing and marketing consumer products—or as someone doing anything with food, you simply do not want to have the words 'Produce of China', 'Grown in China' or 'Made in China' on your product, and the reason is that we know that Chinese standards for growing food are less than adequate.

I have travelled extensively throughout China. I am happy to buy my footwear, my clothing and my electronics from China; but, when it comes to produce that is grown in China, having been to China many times, I will simply pass. If we enable a manufacturer not to disclose the fact that the produce they have in their packets is made in China then the market is simply not working to it most efficient level. There is no pressure on producers in China to improve their standards. If we have efficient and effective labelling which gives the consumer the knowledge that that product is from China, the consumer will only buy that product if there is a substantial discount. So, if there is a substantial discount on their products, companies in China will want to close that gap. There will be market pressure on them to clean up their act. There will be market pressure on them to ensure that they do not use practices such as using raw human sewage as a cheap fertiliser. There will be market pressure on them to extinguish such practices. We have seen this occur with many other consumer products with the label 'Made in China' that were simply seen as being an inferior brand or of inferior quality. The companies have worked to lift their standards with these products. Nowadays, when we see 'Made in China' on most electronic consumer products, it is not seen as a symbol of poor quality—but it is still seen that way in health. The Chinese have no incentive to fix their practices unless there is market pressure, and that means full disclosure.

The other issue with product labelling is home brand products. We have perhaps one of the most concentrated grocery retail markets anywhere in the world, and this enables the large retailers to have their own home brands. This is an asset transfer from small- and medium-sized businesses to those large retailers. The good will associated with the brand that is on the shelf has been taken away and is now owned by the large retailer. If I am having a home brand product, I want to be able to go from manufacturer to manufacturer to basically use as much market pressure as I can to screw that manufacturer down in price, and so the person who is producing the goods has no good will. If I am able to have a product that looks like it is made in Australia by dressing it up with an Australian company, whether it be Woolworths or Coles, with the label 'Produced in Australia' and if I am able to sneak offshore and source that product from overseas, for instance, from China, without making a full declaration to the consumer then that is misleading and deceptive conduct, and it takes away the good will from Australian manufacturers. This is why the coalition is proudly acting on this issue. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion and strongly endorse the remarks made in relation to it by the members for Fremantle and Makin. This motion follows revelations that certain brands of imported frozen berries grown or packaged in China are suspected of having infected Australians with hepatitis A. All Australians should feel that when they go to their local supermarket the products being sold there are safe and healthy and suitable for consumption. It is apparent to me that imported food currently has an unfair advantage compared with Australian food producers when it comes to food testing and analysis. I have been advised by Ausveg that Australian growers must first subscribe to be a member of a food safety scheme. They are then required to undertake annual audits and regular testing for microbiological issues and chemical residues for at least 100 active ingredients and chemical anolytes. However, only five percent of imports are tested at the border—for only 49 chemical residues, as well as for food-labelling issues.

It seems to me that if Australian farmers and food producers are required to meet high food safety standards and are to be subject to extensive testing, as they should be, then imported products should have to meet those same criteria before they are stacked on our supermarket shelves. Australian fruit and vegetable growers have said that the failure to test imported berries for hepatitis A and other pathogens, despite outbreaks in recent years across Europe and the United States linked to imported frozen berry products, was absolutely astounding. The deputy chief executive of AUSVEG, Andrew White, stated:

The system is completely inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Growers are concerned there isn't a level playing field when it comes to imports versus the requirements and quality assurance processes that growers in Australia have to comply with.

Mr White said that lack of testing of imported products was also a problem. He said:

We also think the import testing arrangements need to be reviewed. They are not even testing for microbiological threats. The government has acknowledged this and they are looking to review it, and we support that.

I move now to food-labelling issues. I support this motion's intention to improve food-labelling standards to help better inform Australian consumers about where products come from and to encourage consumers to buy Australian made food. Current food-labelling arrangements are weak and confusing. There has been a concern about lack of transparency in labelling laws, about the meaning of the terms 'product of Australia' and 'made in Australia' and how they fit with the 'Made in Australia' and 'Australian Made' logos. The current situation is confusing for consumers. We see qualified claims which state that food is made in Australia 'from a combination of local and imported ingredients'. Again, as the deputy chief executive of AUSVEG, Andrew White, said, the cost of changes to packaging is negligible. He said:

… packaging can be changed very easily. It is not a hard thing to do and it is not costly

I also want to note the issue of globalisation—the impact of free trade policies and free trade agreements on our ability to protect ourselves in relation to health and phytosanitary issues. The fact is that free trade fundamentalists have left us vulnerable and exposed, not only in terms of economic issues but in terms of health standards—a point made recently by Michael Moore of the Public Health Association in the context of the Australia-Pacific free trade deal. He said that this was an issue of potentially great concern.

Finally, I want to support the remarks made by Tom Elliott on Saturday, 28 February, in the Herald Sun. He said:

Not that long ago Australians understood that fruit and veg had seasons outside which consumption wasn’t possible. In summer we ate apricots, bananas and grapes. By contrast, during winter we turned to apples, pears and mandarins. But since the development of cheap refrigeration and rapid shipping, our eating habits have changed.

If we are going to improve the situation we find ourselves in now, he said, we should accept that not every fruit we enjoy can be obtained year round, that we should try to dine as our forebears did—sparingly and of food which is in season—and that we should not be buying stuff grown outside of Australia. We should be checking the labels. Our farmers do their best to conform to extraordinarily high standards of food safety and we should support them in that matter.

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

I will start by addressing the inaccuracies in the member for Fremantle's motion. Food Standards Australia New Zealand do not require testing, as they do not set the testing regime. Rather, they identify which foods and imports of foodstuffs are considered high risk and then the Department of Agriculture determines the testing regime. Currently, and indeed previously under the Labor-Greens alliance government, those foods deemed high risk are subject to 100 per cent inspection for five shipments, dropping to 25 per cent for 20 shipments and then to five per cent. Unfortunately, berries were not identified as a high-risk item, but I believe that has already been appropriately addressed by the Minister for Agriculture, who has asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand to reassess the risk associated with berries. I cannot support this part of the motion as it is not true. However, local growers are not required by the government to test for chemicals. As everyone knows, there are international standards for allowable limits of chemical residue from pesticides and fertilisers, so the testing that is done is a commercial imperative for growers to be able to ensure their product is fit for market.

As for the rest of the motion, in 2011 I spoke in this place on this very issue. I spoke about consumers being well and truly tired of guessing where their food comes from. The Blewett report, commissioned by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and released on the 28 January 2011, addressed many of the issues we are talking about today. For example, this motion, at (1)(d), states that labelling is confusing regarding country-of-origin labelling. Unlike points (b) and (c) of this motion, that is true. But why is it confusing? The Blewett report, at recommendations 40 and 41 out of 62, asked that country-of-origin laws be extended to include:

That for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific country-of-origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components (excluding water), be developed.

Four years ago, the ALP-Greens de facto relationship had a chance to address the issue of food-specific country-of-origin labelling. Their response was that they did not support either of the recommendations related to country-of-origin labelling, because it was all a bit too hard. How often has that been the excuse of those opposite—food labelling? A bit too hard. Stopping the boats, stopping deaths at sea and keeping children out of detention? A bit too hard. Responsibly managing the economy? A bit too hard. Fortunately for consumers, we now have a government which is not afraid of hard work and is not afraid to make decisions in the national interest—in the interests of all Australians.

As Minister Joyce said on 26 February, 'People want to know exactly where their food comes from, and this is the government that is going to do it.' Better labelling will be backed up by enhanced screening at the border. The coalition government is strong on border protection and that means biosecurity as well. It will still not be possible to test every single food item that arrives in Australia, but, as I said earlier, the Department of Agriculture has requested that Food Standards Australia New Zealand review the way they identify risk foods.

It pays to remember that this is a regime that has served our country well until this incident. There are always risks associated with importing food across great distances, and that is what our border protection forces are trained to deal with. I support the work they do. Over 98 percent of all foods imported are declared clear of disease and other contaminants when they arrive in Australia, according to the imported food inspection data released by the Department of Agriculture. That is a very good pass rate. I believe that consumers can remain confident that the vast majority of imported foods are at the standard we expect.

While I support the general thrust of this motion, as I did four years ago when the then Labor government rejected them, I must also admonish those opposite for failing to act when they were told by one of their own, Dr Neal Blewett, to do so. I support this motion in principle but reject the cheap partisan politics that characterise this opposition. The coalition government has a good track record in this field, and it is time for Labor to get on board and stop putting politics ahead of the people of Australia.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:33 to 15 : 59