Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation, I was saying that the Imported Food Inspection Scheme of Australia creates two categories of food for inspection. The first is the high- and medium-risk category, where 20 consecutive consignments are looked at over a period and if the inspection of those consignments, at varying rates, finds no problems with the product, then the inspection rate is reduced to five per cent. Unfortunately, those consignments can be just one carton of food, and that carton can be delivered as a new consignment every day for 20 days. Of course, the importers are not foolish; they understand the system very well, so they make sure that product is squeaky clean. There is a serious problem there, I believe.

Then we have the low-risk category called 'surveillance food'. Samples of surveillance food may be analysed for pesticides, antibiotics, microbiological contaminants, natural toxicants, metal contaminants and food additives. But in fact the inspection usually only involves visual label assessment. It may include some sampling of the food for application of analytical tests, but it does not have to. I am concerned about this surveillance category because it includes tinned fruits amongst its products. You might say that tinned fruits have been processed, they have gone through a significant heating process during manufacture, so they are probably going to be okay—wherever they have come from. But our experience is different when we have had, in particular, three-kilo cans of peaches tested in Australia by the National Measurement Institute last year, and elevated levels of lead were found in those three-kilo cans of imported peaches.

As required by the system, it is the states who, if notified of a problem of contamination, are supposed to decide on a recall or not. Virtually all states in Australia were notified of this lead contamination issue in the three-kilo cans of imported peaches, and no state chose to put out a recall or removal of that product from shelves. It would have been difficult, I have to confess, because a three-kilo can of product is most likely going to be in the hospitality or services industry, being served to hospitals, prisons, defence forces and school canteens. But, quite clearly, the surveillance food risk category for that product is not the right category.

More recently, at the beginning of the year, more canned peaches—imported from China—were inspected and found by the RMIT testing regime to contain not only elevated levels of lead but also arsenic. I am most concerned that none of that product has been withdrawn or recalled. In fact, since the contamination of that product was made known to numbers of governments, there has not been any feedback at all. So we have to make sure that with this bill, where we are looking at the costs of the Imported Food Inspection Scheme, those costs are right. We also have to make sure that the way we calculate those costs is right and that the party who is responsible for importing the product is charged. All of that is very important and, therefore, I support this bill.

What I am identifying is that we have a problem between the state and federal governments' coordination of food inspections. The states, in particular, are supposed to make sure that the food is fit for human consumption and is not likely to cause any illness or bad effect right through to its serving on a plate in a school canteen or a restaurant, or even in the home. States virtually no longer have food inspectors out in the system. Local councils once provided the pie and sausage inspectors; they are virtually non-existent now. The regimes, I believe, are under serious pressure in terms of the number of people who are dedicated to the task and the resources that are committed to this task. Under Labor, as we know, there was a slashing and burning in particular of biosecurity services. We really do have to protect the interests of our consumers in Australia. We have to make sure that the labelling shows not only whether the product is more or less 50 per cent grown, manufactured and made in Australia; the consumer also wants to know: where did the product actually come from? There is a lot of understanding about the different food safety regimes in different countries. Consumers are not stupid. They want to know. So that will, I think, be an important part of the consultation and feedback on our new food labelling laws.

I am commending this bill to the House but I am also saying that it is an area that we have inherited with a lot of flaws. I know the Minister for Agriculture understands this. He has to work through COAG to try to bring our states into line so that we have consistent food safety regulation and appropriate risk and surveillance categories. I think we need to revisit the manufactured fruit, particularly canned fruit, being in the surveillance or 'low risk' food category, because our random inspections of canned fruit from some countries has given us great cause for alarm. We cannot afford to have a situation not only where people become ill with hepatitis A but where, over multiple uses of, say, a product containing high levels of lead, we do serious damage to our children and our elderly. So I commend this bill to the House, but I also commend to us, in a bipartisan way, a comprehensive and thorough relook at how we test imported product that comes into this country so that we can make sure that we do not have two different regimes—one for exported product, which is of one of the world's highest standards, and a lesser standard for imported product. This is especially important as we import more food, which I am always concerned about when we have our own home-grown product, and when the supply chains are ever more complex. It is no longer just a case of saying, 'That product came from Taiwan'. Often the product was caught in Australia, was sent to Taiwan, was manufactured there, was marketed through some other country and finally ends up with very unusual labelling of country of origin on our 'no name' shelves in our supermarkets.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having some of the most stringent food standards in the world provides a high level of protection for Australian consumers. Consumers expect that food imported from overseas meets the same standards as food produced in Australia. I disagree with the member for Hunter's comments that the Auditor-General's recent finding on the effectiveness of the imported food inspection scheme was seriously flawed. In fact, the Auditor-General found that the Department of Agriculture administration of these arrangements had been generally effective. Three recommendations have been made, all of which the department has agreed to. The department has commenced work to address the recommendations and this work will further improve the inspection of imported food. Maintaining community confidence in the safety of all food is of great importance to the government. This report will further support the improvement of food safety and compliance with Australian food standards.

To reassure the member for Hunter, actions have been taken in response to recent food safety incidents. The Auditor-General's report highlights the responses linked to hepatitis and imported frozen berries and food poisoning in imported fish. Inspection rates of these products have been increased. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has reviewed the disease status of frozen berries, and a testing protocol has been developed for E. coli in berries as an indicator for process hygiene. The department has also notified importers of frozen berries that they must ensure that their supply chains are underpinned by good agriculture and hardy manufacturing practices to manage food safety risks.

Having appropriate cost-recovery mechanisms in place to support the activities that ensure compliance with the scheme is essential. These standards are a critical part of an imported food system. The government is committed to maintaining and improving these arrangements. The Imported Food Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2015, the Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015, the Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015 and the Imported Food Charges (Collection) Bill 2015 will enable cost-recovery activities that benefit importers of food. Constitutionality requires us to do all this in separate bills. This includes the recovery costs for administering the imported food regulatory framework, including the development of audit and compliance standards for third-party arrangements.

These bills are not about the country-of-origin food labelling. I know this is an important issue for many Australians. This is why the government is providing consumers with the opportunity to have their say on simpler and more logical ways to label food. I call on those who are currently listening to make sure that they get their responses in, and currently we have around 8,000 responses on our website. The Australian people have asked for a food-labelling system that: is simple; reflects proportionality of how much of the food actually comes from our nation of the substantive ingredients; is diagrammatic and can be understood at a glance; and is compulsory. This is something within the National Party and the Liberal Party that we have been fighting for for a long period of time, and it is great to be part of a government that is actually going to see this introduced.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections on fishing. It is always amazing that, when you are actually doing something that the previous government were unable to do, the opposition then find an extra position which is yet another thing that they never did. It shines a very clear light on the inadequacies of the previous government to deliver a labelling system which is what the Australian people asked for. We will be the government that actually see that labelling system in place.

People have said that the labelling system we have uses weasel words. It does not actually reflect whether a product comes from our nation. It can come from a myriad of nations, and maybe not come from our nation at all, yet it manages to get the words 'made in Australia' on it. In relation to proportionality, either a bar graph or a pie chart, which are part of the examples out for public discussion, this will give people the opportunity to discuss these and other avenues of clearly identifying a proper labelling system that the Labor government was unable to introduce.

In fact, everything that the Labor Party does is a commentary on issues that they never did. They never brought in a proper agriculture policy. They never brought in a proper drought policy. They absolutely decimated the Department of Agriculture.

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

The minister was hopeless.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, not one, they had three of them.

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

All hopeless.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a stepping stone to oblivion to be the Minister for Agriculture in the Labor government. We had the oxymoronic concept wherein one of the most urbanised seats in Australia held the Minister for Agriculture, which at that time was Minister Burke, the member for Watson.

What was more important is that they more than halved the agriculture budget. They spent money everywhere else. There was one place they did find savings. They found savings in agriculture and almost decimated the department. It is beyond belief that one could compare the absolute apparent success that the government have seen in record prices in cattle, record prices in sheep, close to record prices in wool, strong prices in cotton, three free trade agreements—and I commend the work of Minister Robb—six new live animal destinations and protocols in place. Since the GFC I think there has been a 36 per cent increase in our exports of rural produce. These are the actions of a competent government. It is like Sir Christopher Wren said: if you want to see our memorial, have a look around any saleyard you like and you will see how we are going, you will see what we are delivering.

Opposition members interjecting—

I can assure you that I have seen alternative policies of the previous government that were able to decimate large swathes of agriculture in Australia. One would say that would be difficult, but the Labor government managed to do it. What we have seen on our side, even in the most recent budget, is the capacity to concentrate on agriculture. The former Treasurer, Mr Swan, I do not think, ever, in his budget speeches mentioned the word 'agriculture'. If you do the word search in his budget speeches—

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

He didn't mention the word 'farmer'.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was actually one time he mentioned the word 'farm'. I think it was to do with farm finance. This is a differentiation. We have taken agriculture to the centre of government. We honestly believe that it is a true pillar of our economy. We have delivered the results. The results speak for themselves. The results are there because the difference between two forms of government and two forms of outcome has to be understood. This is not hyperbole; it is actual, it is real, it is giving the capacity for people to say for the first time, 'I've cleared my overdraft. For the first time there is real money.'

I have just finished a conversation with people on my agricultural committee from around the nation. Overwhelmingly there was a positive response. They say that they are excited about the future because of the work that this government has done. Even if you go to the wine industry there are new contracts at better prices. This is the sort of work we do because we have people on our side of the parliament who have a passion for agriculture.

Beside me at the moment is probably the biggest cattle producer in the coalition, the member for Wentworth. He has a substantial holding of cattle in the Hunter Valley. That is what they lack on the other side. There is not one farmer. That party once had Mick Young and Minister Walsh, who was a grain farmer. Where are their farmers? Is it the case that any person involved in agriculture can see nothing but a desert in the policy of the Labor Party? There is nothing to intrigue people into being part of the Labor Party and to joining the Labor Party. When the question was posed if there was a farmer in the Labor Party we got the member for Fremantle, and I think that is a very obscure reference to her parents, who might have had something to do with the land. That is it. This is why we must lay down at treatise on how to take agriculture forward. We are doing it and we are delivering it.

The Australian government has had a longstanding policy of recovering the costs from importers of food. The arrangements in place must allow the Department of Agriculture to recover costs effectively. The package of bills will ensure that appropriate cost-recovery mechanisms are in place for all imported food related activities. Under the imposition bills, regulations will prescribe the amount of the charges and who is liable to pay. These bills also include a safeguard regarding the amount of the charge. The collection bill provides the authority to collect charges imposed and to determine when the charge is due and payable. The bill also provides the Commonwealth with mechanisms to appropriately the deal with nonpayment and late payment. It also sets out provisions for the remitting or refunding of charges. The legislation will sit alongside existing legislation that allows cost recovery of activities provided directly to people, such as inspection and audit services. It provides a flexible and common-sense structure for applying charges. This supports the important work undertaken by the Department of Agriculture to monitor the compliance of imported food with the Australian food standards.

When a small office of the ministry of agriculture moved to Armidale I was amazed that all we got from Labor was half a day in estimates.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A small office—175 staff?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The current office in Armidale has three staff. What did they want? What was their alternative? They had plans to incorporate the Department of Agriculture's office in Kogarah in Sydney. That was it.

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

That's rural and regional.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well St George is close enough. 'Possibly in Queensland but more likely in Sydney'—that was it. What have we had all the time the Labor Party have been in opposition? Where is the ardent investigation of alternative forms of policy? We have had nothing but commentary and derision. They have never been able to table a policy that shows some respect to the people they are supposed to be representing. Let us look at what we have done. Even in the drought they managed to give out eight concessional loans. That is how many they got out. We have delivered 551 concessional loans. With the interim farm family payment they had managed to successfully deliver 367 across the nation. We have had over 5,000 people get access to the farm household allowance.

It is not only looking at the core constituency and making sure that our commodity prices are at record levels; it is looking after those people on the edge. We have been doing both. As we speak coming back into our office is the plan for dog fences so we can rid many areas of the western districts of a scourge that will not allow us to repopulate those areas with sheep. That is happening as we speak. As we speak we are getting a policy so the epicentre of the drought gets a stimulus package. That is happening as we speak.

As we speak we are developing new markets. Today we have tabled the free trade agreement with China. As we speak we are investigating greater ways to get further exports of kangaroo meat so we can take some of the pressure off the pastoral districts. We know that one of the only ways you can deal with an exploding kangaroo population is to find a market for kangaroo meat, and we are doing that. That is what an effective government does. I take the laurel of being the Minister for Agriculture incredibly seriously. It is one of the most significant policies that the coalition can have. We wish it were the case that that desire and quest were held on both sides of the House, but they are not. What we see is commentary and derision against real policy and delivery of outcomes. I commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.