Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, is very important to a number of my constituents. I particularly want to mention the story of Mr Simon Korlaki, who has contacted me on a number of occasions, including at one of my mobile offices, to raise with me his concerns about some of the difficulty in knowing where food comes from. I am a strong supporter of making sure that people are able to find out where the food that they are buying comes from. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will have heard Labor talking a lot lately about not just employing Australian and building Australian but also buying Australian, and I know it is something that my constituents are very concerned about. Mr Korlaki has raised a number of different types of foods. He contacted my office about walnuts. He bought a packet of walnuts and on the packet it said, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said, 'It's a packet of walnuts. How can there possibly be a diversity of local and imported ingredients in that packet?' He came to see me at my mobile office, as I mentioned, and brought with him a packet of acai berries. I am not sure if I have the pronunciation right, but everyone in this place will have had an acai bowl with the beautiful bananas and strawberries and honey on top, and maybe with chia seeds. The berries are delicious, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker. Trust me, they are delicious.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not commenting—it's okay!

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is not commenting! Well, I am here to tell you that the acai berries are delicious. My constituent bought a packet of acai berries, presumably to make himself a delicious acai breakfast bowl but perhaps for other purposes—we did not really get into that. He showed me the packet and, again, it said on the packet, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said to me, 'They're just berries. There's nothing else in the packet except for all these berries. How can they possibly be made from local and imported ingredients?' These are very good and interesting questions, but they are also very serious questions. If you want to buy Australian and you are an Australian who wishes to see money spent in Australia stay in Australia, then you do want to know where your food comes from and whether or not you are able to meet your ambition for your consumption by looking at food labelling.

As you know, Mr Speaker, this bill will give us some assistance in knowing a little more about where the content of packages has come from and where it has been made. Obviously, it will not go into a detailed ingredient-by-ingredient description of every component of everything that is in a packet, but it will give consumers a bit more to go on than they have had in the past. Mr Speaker, you will be aware, of course, of the labels proposed by this bill to be used. The label will give a little diagram that will show people the proportion of ingredients made in Australia in a given packet. That diagram will have your very familiar 'Made in Australia' logo on it—the triangle with the kangaroo; we have all seen that for many years in this country. Underneath the kangaroo logo, there will be a little window that will be shaded to indicate what proportion of the contents of the packet are made from Australian ingredients. The words underneath will say, 'Made in Australia from zero per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from less than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from more than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from more than 50 per cent Australian ingredients,' and so on. That will be the 'Made in' country-of-origin claim and there will also be 'Grown in' country-of-origin claims and 'Packed in' statements. All of those three things are of concern to people in the community, and that includes my constituents.

I think that these changes are a step in the right direction. Obviously, ideally constituents of mine would like to know very clearly all of those things—where things were made, where they have been packed, where they have been grown and about all the ingredients in the food that they have purchased—for a range of reasons, and they would be interested in knowing those things when they are at the supermarket. When you are at the supermarket, I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, but I certainly do pick up the packets and find out where things have been made or where they have been grown to the extent that the information is currently available because, as a consumer, I do want to be able to make a choice.

We have so much choice available to us, so we do want, when selecting between different goods, to be able to make an informed choice, and we—whether it is because of patriotism, whether it is because we have known people who have lost their jobs in Australia through redundancies when work has dried up or whether it is because we have friends or family who have been in that situation—want a situation where we buy Australian first. That is certainly something that a number of people in my electorate worry about, so a piece of legislation like this one is very important.

Food labelling seems like it is quite a mundane thing; it seems like it is quite an everyday question, but it is really important to the informed choice of consumers, to the money that is spent in Australia and to the question of whether the money does stay on our shores. I do believe that Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from and, accordingly, I take this issue very seriously, as does Labor.

You would also be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, in government, Labor conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws, and that we worked very closely with the states, through the Council of Australian Governments, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. We also recognised that consumers are not the only people participating in the market in Australia when it comes to Australian food. Producers are also participants, and it is really important that, when we think about the rights of consumers, we do make sure we are not putting an undue burden on Australia's food processors for many reasons: nobody wants to see people have undue burdens placed on them, and it would be counterproductive if it meant that food processing and manufacturing ended up going offshore.

The food-processing industry is an industry that is very important to Australia, and it is something we are good at because we are a safe country, we are not a corrupt country and we are a country where there are very high-quality standards, and those things are all very important for contributing to the quality of Australian-made products. Australian consumers benefit from food being produced, made, grown and packed here in Australia, and so I certainly support the importance of not placing an undue burden on Australia's food processors and thereby avoiding the possible perverse effect of sending manufacturing offshore.

Labor committed to funding a bipartisan solution on food labelling in February 2015. We called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. In doing so, we did highlight the need to get all of the relevant ministers together to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. We also said that the government should start by addressing the recommendations of the bipartisan House of Representatives report on food labelling, and that we stood ready to constructively consider any positive policy processes that might result from this process.

Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food, and Labor remains willing to work with the Prime Minister and his colleagues to improve the country-of-origin labelling requirements. We also strongly urge the government to think a bit more broadly about biosecurity and we also strongly encourage the government to do what it can to encourage and support Australian manufacturing.

It is unfortunate that we have not really seen that strong commitment to Australian manufacturing from this government since it took office in September 2013. You only have to think, when it comes to manufacturing more broadly, of the way that the car industry was goaded into leaving Australia or you only have to think about what happened with SPC, for example. More broadly, what is really lacking from the discussion in this House is a serious industry policy aimed at reinvigorating Australian manufacturing. There are some people who say, 'Oh well, Australian manufacturing cannot be reinvigorated,' and they are absolutely wrong. In fact, if you look around this country you will see amazing examples of advanced manufacturing and what is possible through technology, through systems innovation and through leveraging that really high quality that we have. A good example, in my view, is the company Swiss that does the supplements—a really interesting firm, a really innovative firm. They manufacture here in Australia, because it gives them an advantage in overseas markets to be able to say that they produce their products here in Australia where there are those high-quality standards.

I also had the benefit recently of getting to know a little bit about some of the other manufacturing that is happening onshore. In fact, Johnson & Johnson stopped by my office, as I am sure they did many offices in this place recently, and mentioned their view in the course of the conversation that Australia is a great place for manufacturing, particularly for advanced manufacturing.

I would like to see more from this government in terms of Australian manufacturing, promoting Australian manufacturing and talking up our ability to be a great place for manufacturing to occur. That goes for food manufacturing, but it also goes for so much more when we are talking about what is possible in manufacturing, including advanced manufacturing, in this country.

We all know, everyone in this place knows very well, that there is a great big challenge for this parliament and for the government when it comes to Australian jobs, because Australian jobs need to be better. We need more jobs, and we need our jobs to be more secure. There is a real set of problems in our economy at the moment. There are 700,000 people in the unemployment queues, people who cannot even get a single hour of work. There are 1.1 million people who are underemployed, who want more work or who want more secure work. The underemployment rate is the highest it has been since the records started being kept in 1978, the year after I was born. That is a very worrying thing, and it should be worrying for all of us because that sometimes more hidden element of underemployment is really contributing to a range of the problems we have in this country—problems like really low wages growth; wages growth is at its lowest level since 1997 when the Wage Price Index commenced being kept.

It is a problem for the Commonwealth government budget—slow income growth affects revenue negatively—but also it is a problem for those households. They are not seeing wages growth. They are not seeing their living standards increase at the rate that economic growth in this country is increasing. It is not a problem that we want to import. It is a US style problem and they have had this issue for a number of years. We should not be importing that into Australia.

We need a jobs focus. We also need to remember that there are around one million people in Australia on temporary work visas of one kind or another. That should be concerning to people, particularly of that group. We should be particularly concerned about those who are here on visas that are designed to fill skills shortage gaps, the 457 visas. We should be particularly concerned about that because those numbers have been stubbornly high.

Why should it be that we have had the occupation of bricklayer on the temporary skilled migration list for longer than it takes to train bricklayers in this country? Fair cop that there was a sudden lack of bricklayers in Australia and we needed to get a bunch of them in to overcome that lack, but why in the years since then have we not trained enough bricklayers so that we can make the 457 visa for bricklayers obsolete? There are plenty of occupations on the 457 visa list, and that is something that should be of concern to us. That means we do need to be worried about jobs. We do need to talk about jobs in this place. And when we talk about jobs we mean jobs for locals, jobs that are secure, jobs that are available and jobs for which training and skills development are available. They are very important things.

These issues do not just affect the households of people who do not have work but also they affect the whole economy. If people are in secure work, if people have high levels of private debt, which we have in Australia, and they are worried about their capacity to service that debt, if people cannot get work in the first place, those things as well as affecting the household budget also affect the Commonwealth government budget and the national economy. This is because they have a detrimental effect on consumption, on aggregate demand. Those things should be worrying for all of us wondering where we are going to get the economic growth from that our country needs.

I would say that in talking about a bill that relates to issues on manufacturing we do need to be constantly mindful of making sure that there are jobs for Australian kids when they grow up and that people who are already in the workforce and employed, in the workforce and employed but underemployed, or seeking work, participating in the workforce but not having work, are able to get the jobs they need and the jobs they should be able to, in a country like ours with strong economic growth.

For all of those reasons as well as for the consumer-driven reasons I mentioned earlier, it is important and relevant for us to be talking about buying Australian, building Australian and employing Australian. Those three things are important when it comes to this bill. We do want to help consumers be in a position where they can be confident, when making a choice, that they are buying Australian, if that is what they wish to do. Accordingly, I am very pleased there has been some progress on the country-of-origin labelling. I know my constituent Mr Korlaki will also be very pleased that there has been some progress, although I suspect he would have liked a bit more progress. I commend the built the House.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I would also say how pleased I am that it is finally coming to fruition, after some time. I am sure you are very well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, coalition MPs and senators, particularly those such as John 'Wacka' Williams—and many others—have been fighting for more accurate country-of-origin food labelling for more than a decade. In fact, Senator Williams, I think, attributes his somewhat declining and receding hairstyle to beating his head against a wall for more than 10 years over just this issue.

Over the years there have been numerous inquiries and reports. I will not go into the specifics of every single report or review but between 2003 and 2013 there were four inquiries, four reports tabled two reviews. In March 2014 the parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry agreed to undertake another one. The committee released its report A Clearer message for consumers in October last year. This committee was of the opinion that any country-of-origin food-labelling regime should not present an impediment to importers and/or provide non-tariff trade protection to our industries but it should provide clear information to consumers who wish to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers. The report also highlighted consumer support for local produce, stating:

The Committee acknowledges that many consumers want to support Australian businesses by purchasing Australian made products—consumers express a strong preference to support local industries including food processing and manufacturing.

The issue of berries in 2015 increased public awareness and support for something that the farming and fishing industries have been long calling for: a level playing field when it comes to labelling. The coalition government has taken action to support our farmers and they give consumers real choice. At the end of the day, it is quite simple: Australians deserve to be able to make informed decisions and to know exactly what it is they are buying at their local supermarket. We want Australians to have confidence in knowing where their food is coming from.

Research commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in 2015 looked at the value Australian consumers place on country-of-origin information when purchasing food. It found that being able to identify the country of origin of food was either important or very important to 74 per cent of consumers surveyed. Many consumers are interested in not just where something was made or packed but also how much of the food was grown in this country. Consumers want—and they deserve—peace of mind about labels. A claim that a product is 'made in' or is 'a product of' Australia in the new system will ensure that that is the case. In saying the product is made from 'local and imported ingredients' will, quite simply, not cut it.

Consumer dissatisfaction in the country-of-origin labelling system has been evident for many years. Most recently, the response to a Colmar Brunton online survey mirrored that of the CHOICE campaign earlier in 2015, which generated over 26,000 responses. It found that almost three-quarters of consumers believe that changes to country-of-origin labelling were necessary. That is almost as many, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you get to your online surveys. However, the importance of easy-to-find labels was indicated, in the Colmar Brunton research, by the clear preference of participants for the labels that included visual elements, particularly the label option that combined text statements with visual representations via the kangaroo logo and bar chart.

The participants in the same study were asked to estimate the proportion of time they spent during a regular but hypothetical 60-minute grocery shop, reading the back of the label to find where products have been made or processed or where ingredients come from. Their time amounted to eight per cent of shopping time, or five minutes in a typical hour-long shop. This is time that could potentially be saved if label information was more easily identifiable. Thankfully, the new food labelling system will quickly and easily show consumers where products are made, grown or packaged. The new labels for food will include a bar chart and words to indicate the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food.

All food for retail sale in Australia requires a country-of-origin statement, but there are additional graphic and information requirements mandated for labels for priority food. Importing ingredients and simply slicing or packing them here will no longer qualify for a 'made in Australia' claim. The bill will simplify the tests used to justify a country of origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and removing the 50 per cent production cost test. The changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. They will make it clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of imported goods are not sufficient to justify the 'made in' claim.

The 50 per cent production cost test is an unnecessary burden on businesses and it means little to consumers. The test is difficult to administer, given the complexities of sourcing components through the global supply chain and the fluctuations in input prices and exchange rates. The removal of the 50 per cent production cost test will significantly reduce the regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses. It is the main regulatory offset against the added costs imposed on food businesses by the information standard. The decision regulation impact statement estimated the total savings from removal of the production cost test at $49 million per year, or $550 million over a 20-year period in present value terms.

Research has shown that identifying the country of origin is the most important piece of information for consumers when it comes to food, and it can influence buyers' decisions. The value consumers place on origin information can vary between food types, depending on the level of processing. Country-of-origin information is valued more for fresh and less processed food. This is supported by an international literature review of country-of-origin food labelling, which cited different studies in which country of origin was shown to be one of the most important cues demanded by consumers on meat products.

A comprehensive consultation with consumers, growers and businesses meant there was ample opportunity for people to have their say on the proposed labels. The green and gold triangle design was the overwhelming preference of more than 17,800 respondents to the government's food labelling community survey. I thank those people who completed the survey and had their opinions heard. After all, the labelling is supposed to make it easier for consumers, not more confusing.

Importantly, the new food labelling system will not impose an excessive burden on businesses. At June 2014, there were over 17,300 food retailers in Australia, including almost 10,000 supermarket and grocery stores; around 4,700 fresh meat, fish and poultry retailers; and 2,500 fruit and vegetable retailers. There are also over 13,000 food and beverage manufacturing businesses in Australia. Bakery product manufacturers make up the largest proportion at some 45 per cent, followed by beverage manufacturers at 19 percent. Each of the other sub-sectors accounts for one to 10 per cent of food manufacturers, including meat manufacturers, fruit and vegetable processing, dairy product manufacturing, sugar and confectionery manufacturing, grain mill and cereal, seafood processing, and oil and fat manufacturing. Agricultural food production is the other key player in the food industry, with over 133,000 businesses.

While the reforms began on 1 July 2016, businesses will have up to two years to transition to the new arrangements and incorporate them into routine label changes, and all stock in trade can see out its shelf life. The government has developed an online self-assessment tool for businesses specifically to help them determine their new labels. Businesses can download the new labels using this tool. There is also a style guide and other information available to help businesses understand the changes.

To support the effective implementation of the reforms, the coalition government has provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with additional funding of $4.2 million over five years to undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to these new requirements. The government is also funding $15.2 million for an information campaign to ensure consumers and businesses understand the revised framework. However, the consumer benefit from the time saving that will be generated from the visual elements of the label is estimated to far outweigh the cost to industry of providing them with that information.

The new labels are expected to appear on shop shelves later this year, so keep an eye out for them; they are around. But Australians also have to get on board. You should always 'shop local' and always read the label. I always encourage constituents in my electorate of Hinkler to 'shop local' wherever possible, and why wouldn't they? There is so much on offer from our local businesses, whether it is macadamia nuts, avocados, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, limes, watermelons, pumpkins, rockmelons or strawberries, just to name a few. I even have a note here saying I can expand on this list if I wish.

We have several major food processing facilities in my electorate, including AustChilli, which has been featured on My Kitchen Rules; Simpson Farms, which was recently featured on ABC Landline with Pip Courtney; the Australian Ocean King Prawn Company in Hervey Bay and Urangan Fisheries. Those businesses export to the world and they employ hundreds of our local people. They, like other local companies around this great nation, deserve our support.

Australian food producers exporting their products can also use the new domestic label overseas, and they can do so proudly. The reforms to country-of-origin labelling comply with Australia's international trade obligations. The coalition government has consulted with trading partners throughout the development of the reforms and will continue to work closely with them.

There is no doubt that our domestic product is in high demand. You only have to look at the success of free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. Recently, I hosted a seminar on the Sunshine Coast to inform businesses of how they can take advantage of those FTAs. I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace, and the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, firstly for their hospitality and secondly for their attendance and keen interest in the FTAs and what they can do for businesses in their electorates. The CEO of Sunshine Coast exporter Nutworks, Kylie Watson, spoke about her company's experience following the reduction in Chinese tariffs on Australian macadamias. This was mandated, of course, under CHAFTA, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. She told the seminar that there had been an increase in demand for Australian macadamia products in China and if it were not for the FTA the costs would make it impossible for her compete with other countries.

I can also say that, most recently, this year my own electorate in the region has become the biggest producer of macadamia nuts in this country. They have far outstripped expectations. They are going incredibly well and, significantly, they are going very, very well because of the FTAs with those three countries.

I also recently had the opportunity to visit the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative facility in North Fremantle, Western Australia, which is a long way from home and which is the world's biggest exporter of rock lobster—right here in Australia, in the west. With a membership of 200 fishermen, the co-op employs 350 Australians and currently sells around $450 million worth of rock lobsters each year. Australia's free trade agreement with China, in force since December last year, has seen the tariff for fresh or chilled rock lobster cut to nine per cent this year and it will fall again to six per cent in just four more months, on 1 January 2017. For the first six months of 2016, direct Chinese imports of live, fresh and chilled Australian rock lobster more than trebled compared to the same period last year to reach $20.7 million. Continuing tariff cuts under ChAFTA for these and many other Australian exports will boost trade opportunities leading to sales growth for Australian businesses abroad and increased jobs here at home to meet this demand.

A little closer to my own electorate, my colleague the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, and I visited tropical fruit farmers in Central Queensland who are interested in new market opportunities in Asia. Mangoes are an important fruit export for Queensland, and the China-Australia FTA has already cut the tariff for Australian mangoes from 15 per cent to nine per cent. The trade data shows that, in the early part of this year, Chinese imports of fresh Australian mangoes more than doubled compared to the previous growing season. This meant that Australia overtook Thailand as China's principal supplier of mangoes in the first half of 2016. I am sure you will agree this is a fantastic result.

Elsewhere, under the Korea-Australia FTA, the 30 per cent tariff which Korea charges on shelled macadamias is down to 12 per cent already. These tariff cuts contributed to a tripling of macadamia exports to Korea in the first half of 2015 compared to 2014 and that higher export level has been maintained into the first half of this year. While it might have taken a while to get to this point, consumers will be the overall winners in having the new country of origin labelling systems and I cannot wait to see those on the shelves. When we talk about FTAs, when we talk about Australian products, there is no greater reflection, there is no greater introduction to an Australian product than actually using it, seeing it, tasting it.

On my most recent visit to China, I walked through the Guangzhou airport, which is obviously a very busy airport in China. There was a small fruit stall at the Guangzhou airport and I thought to myself 'Here is an opportunity just to see what it is that they are selling in China, in Guangzhou.' Much to my surprise, I picked up a mandarin from 2PH Farms, which is a very large citrus farm in Queensland. There were 2PH products, mandarins, right there in Guangzhou China. Through an interpreter, we took the opportunity to have a discussion with the vendor, who informed us that Australia products sell out not in two hours, not in one hour but in 30 minutes. They last just 30 minutes on the shelves. I would just like to say that this is a great bill for consumers and I commend the bill to the House.

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

As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry which inquired into food labelling only two years ago, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. As a result of the work of that committee and some subsequent events which followed, the government did make some changes to country of origin labelling which I welcome. Those changes in essence came into effect from 1 July 2016, and I understand that there will be a transition period for about two years whilst the changes take effect. Under those changes, I believe, there will be some improvements made to consumers' ability to understand where food is coming from, particularly with the labelling itself being changed and with the use of the Kangaroo, the triangle and the bar graph, which shows how much of the food is actually produced or made here in Australia. Those are indeed welcome changes.

The inquiry followed an earlier inquiry carried out by Dr Neal Blewett that was commissioned under a Labor government back in 2011 and his report came up with, from memory, over 60 recommendations which went to the very issues that many members have been speaking about today on this legislation.

One of the issues that is constantly debated and discussed out in the community is the fact that we could have a clearer and better to understand food labelling system in Australia. Having spent months speaking to people from around Australia as part of the committee, I accept that it is not always that simple and that easy to change the labelling system as people would sometimes have us believe. Indeed, having listened to many of the arguments both for and against the changes that were made by the government and which start in 2016, I understand the complexities and the difficulties associated with food labelling laws, not just in this country but indeed around the world.

I very much acknowledge that when America tried to do something similar with their beef and pork some three or four years ago, they were taken to that WTO court in breach of WTO agreements they had entered into with both Canada and Mexico, which highlighted that the issue of food labelling and the questions that need to be resolved are not solely questions for each individual country but in fact do have and can have implications for trade agreements that have been entered into in good faith by countries over the years.

I believe it is of concern that any country—and I hope Australia does not find itself in a similar situation to America—can be taken to court over trying to protect its own interests as America was trying to do with its own food labelling. It seems to me that any government entering into an agreement that would mean Australia was no longer in control of the labelling that it legislates for products here in Australia would be a retrograde step. I recall that, when we were discussing this issue in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, compliance with World Trade Organization obligations and any free trade agreements that we had entered into was one of the possible stumbling blocks about Australia changing its own labelling laws. But, in the end, the government of the day found ways of doing that, and I believe we have come to the right decision with respect to it.

Food labelling is an important issue for Australians. It is important to Australian food producers because it can affect their viability. It is important to consumers who want to know where their food comes from. And it is vitally important to consumers who, for health reasons, need to know what they are consuming. I say that with a degree of concern, because knowing what they are consuming goes to the heart of consumers' fears about food, because many Australians are allergic to a particular type of food. According to the latest ABS figures, almost four million Australians avoid a food because of allergy or intolerance to it. Of those, about 560,000 are children aged between two and 18 years. Allergic reactions can be traumatic to both the person affected and to other family members. In the worst-case scenarios—although not often in Australia—death can result. Indeed, there was a front-page newspaper story about a death related to a food allergy only last week. So, for the four million people in Australia and their families, knowing what is in food is indeed vital, and they need to be confident about the information on the labels. Not surprisingly, consumer information on food packaging is important and has been a priority issue for people for many years in this country.

Whilst this legislation is heading in the right direction, I believe that we can do more. This legislation amends the provisions relating to the safe harbour of food labelling and makes those provisions consistent with the new laws that came into effect on 1 July this year. It is clear that the 'Australian made' and 'Australian produced' tags provide a marketing advantage. If they did not, they would not have been so widely abused prior to certain laws being in place. The growers know that, the food processors know that, the resellers know that, the overseas food importers know that and the unethical food industry operators also know that.

I want to make some other comments about the unethical food industry if time permits, but I will say that dishonest claims about food origins are often made with respect to both the food sold in Australia and the food sold overseas. In fact, I suspect the dishonesty is probably more prevalent overseas, where food that may not be Australian is marketed as being Australian because that adds value to it. I accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in overseas jurisdictions, but I do not accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in the Australian market, and that is perhaps where this legislation is particularly focused.

One of my concerns is that, whilst we have labels, there is little oversight to ensure that the labels are actually correct. There is little oversight to ensure that the ingredients and contents of a food match what is said on the label. Generally it is only when a rival supplier raises a concern or puts in a formal complaint about a food that does not match up to the labelling on it that it is exposed, and then the relevant authorities step in. So it seems that one thing we could do better in this country with respect to food sales is not simply to change the labelling system but to make sure that the labelling system is also provided with some oversight and there are some compliance mechanisms in place that would give consumers the confidence to know that what is on the label is actually also in the food.

The situation is even more problematic with respect to processed food. After all, if processed food contains certain ingredients that are claimed to come from Australia, once the food is processed it is almost impossible to prove that the ingredients indeed do come from Australia and not from another country. So there has to be some degree of reliance on the honesty of the manufacturer. But nevertheless the issue remains that it is difficult and problematic to be guaranteed that the food sources are where the label claims they are. I think we could do better. I hope that in future there might be other ways of us being able to do that.

I want to turn for a moment to Labor's amendment with respect to this legislation, and that is about the consumption of seafood in this country. One of the matters that was raised with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry when we were inquiring into food labelling was the need to ensure that all seafood that is sold in Australia is also properly labelled. While Australian consumers have some certainty about seafood they consume, there are some exemptions to that with respect to seafood sold at supermarkets and fresh fish shops. It has to have country-of-origin labelling, but the exemption is for cooked and preprepared seafood. If you buy fresh fish from a supermarket or a fresh fish shop, it should be labelled, and consumers should know where it comes from. If, however, you go into a restaurant or a takeaway food shop and buy cooked or preprepared seafood, then you do not know where that fish comes from. The effect of the exemption is that restaurants and cafes do not have to label the seafood they sell. That is a fairly serious matter, and I will come to that in just a moment, but one of the objections raised at the time by restaurant people across Australia was that it would become too difficult to correctly label where seafood comes from.

In 2006, the Northern Territory brought in their own laws, requiring cooked and pre-prepared fish to also be labelled, and I understand that New South Wales now plans to do the same. My understanding is that the Northern Territory's experience, which has now been in place for nearly 10 years, has showed that it has worked very well. Indeed, it probably increased sales of restaurant fish, because the consumers were more than happy to buy the fish if they knew where it came from. That is what we were told from people who made submissions to the committee's inquiry. Conversely, the justification for the exemption that currently exists appears to have little substance, given that the system has now worked successfully in the Northern Territory and New South Wales, as I understand, is about to do the same.

It has been estimated that about 40 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia is consumed in a restaurant setting. When consumers go into a restaurant most of them, according to the surveys, believe they are being served Australian fish. It is also estimated that 70 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia—about 370,000 tonnes—is imported. So, whilst Australian consumers believe that, when they go into a restaurant or a cafe, they are most likely to be served Australian fish, the reality is that it is not Australian fish. It would offer a huge growth opportunity for the Australian fish industry if consumers knew that they were going to be getting Australian fish. It would clearly make a difference, as the experience in the Northern Territory has already shown.

That is where we get back to the proposition that properly labelling food is good for producers in this country. The reason that Australian products—not just food but Australian products broadly—are often labelled as being made or produced in Australia is that consumers around the world generally accept that we have good standards here in Australia. I have spoken to people who have spent time overseas. Indeed, I spoke to one person who had spent several years in another country—which I will not name. He was very familiar with the way food was produced in that country and he was also very concerned with the way the food was produced in that country in terms of the how it was grown, the chemicals and the products used to grow it and then process it.

Those concerns equally resonate with people I speak to about the food that we consume in this country. If people know that the food is genuine Australian food, they are more likely to buy it—I always look for the 'Australian made' or the 'Australian produced' tag on products that I buy, if it is at all possible—and that in turn would create more demand for the Australian product. And, if we can create more demand for the Australian product, it is definitely good for Australian manufacturers, Australian producers, Australian growers and Australian industry generally, because there are very large flow-on effects from the food industry to a whole range of other industries. So it is good for the consumer; it is good for the economy; and it is good for the country. With those comments, as I said from the outset, Labor will be supporting this legislation, albeit that we would like to see more done with the fish sales in this country.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Makin in this debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. He was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry in the last parliament—a committee I was the chair of and I delivered the report that he referred to, which I will be speaking about in a moment—and so was the minister at the table, the member for McPherson. It was indeed a very interesting inquiry, but I will come to that in a moment. The government amendments to the bill before us are relatively straightforward. In reality, it is a bit of a tidy-up of the original legislation that follows the commissioning of our new country-of-origin food-labelling system. I will refer to those amendments later on in my speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I am sure you would be very aware of the saying, and many similar to it, that success has a million fathers, and I will claim some responsibility for the nation's new country-of-origin food-labelling system. In my mind, this was an issue that, for years, had deserved a better answer. While much of the legislation previously had been done bit by bit and incrementally, so it was with country-of-origin food-labelling, where we had finally arrived at a place where labels were confusing, difficult to find and almost impossible to understand. The poor information was frustrating to consumers and producers alike—and we are still waiting for those labels to be phased out. I recognise that a couple of manufacturers are using the new labels—and good on them—and I very much look forward over the next two years to all the rest of the manufacturers getting on board.

In early October 2014, as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, I sought ministerial approval from Ministers Macfarlane and Joyce to pursue this inquiry. This space was populated by a plethora of previous reports that had not been acted on, and I thought that it was very important that this one be different. Rather than just recommending that the government study or adopt a new country-of-origin food-labelling system, I thought it was very important that we actually mapped out a path and provided the answer to government. After this committee, we did not need another inquiry to go out and work out how to do it; we actually had the gumption to stand up and say, 'This is the way that it should be done,' and we delivered a report in October 2014—I must have confused the earlier date—entitled A clearer message for consumers.

In early 2015, when I was lobbying ministers for a positive response to the committee's findings, we had the frozen Chinese berries incident during February. Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that enough was enough and that this area of consumer information and protection must be addressed. It was perhaps a little lucky in some ways, because the Chinese berries were clearly identified as Chinese—but it is a very black cloud indeed that has no silver lining. Reports do not always get immediate attention from governments—and I am quite happy to tell people that many reports are picked over for certain facts and positions that committees have arrived at—but, in this case, the Prime Minister declared that there should be alterations and they looked around for the most recent report and, as luck should have it, it was ours. We were in the right place at the right time.

I thank the Minister for Industry of the time, Ian Macfarlane, for inviting me to join the consultative committee. I believe I was able to bring some wisdom learnt through the process of the inquiry to the table on a number of occasions. There were a few suggestions that got thrown around that I was quite opposed to. I said, 'No, we discussed this. We took clear evidence on that particular issue. You need to go back and read the report and understand how the committee arrived at that position.' On two a three occasions, my advice was heeded. I was very pleased with that.

I thought the report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry was fairly finely balanced on how we can provide information the consumer wants without that violating our international trade commitments. It is worth remembering that Australia exports far more food than we import, so those international trade agreements are very, very important to us. We then had to provide information on what it was the customers really wanted to know. Some proposed that every ingredient and the country from which it came be identified. The committee's view was that that was far too prescriptive, particularly for Australian manufacturers who use complex global supply lines which may or may not be able to certify and substantiate exactly where every molecule of that food has come from to the manufacturer. Of course, to the manufacturer, the biggest sin in labelling is to mislead the public, either knowingly or unintentionally, with its information. That meant we needed to be very mindful of not making the cure worse than the disease.

It is patently clear that not all consumers are particularly stressed—in fact, I would say most consumers are not particularly stressed—about where their food comes from. Many simply do not have enough money to be choosy, and they are driven by price. Others just have no interest. But there is a strong consumer group—and I think a growing consumer group—in Australia that cares about safety and quality, and they rate Australian-produced food as some of the world's best in both areas. Some make a conscious decision that they want to support Australian farmers and Australian food-manufacturing jobs—and this is a great thing. It is one of the strongest reasons why our labels should easily, quickly and clearly identify the Australian content in the product. That is exactly what our new laws do.

The most important thing the recommendations gave to us, and, consequently, the legislation, was to separate the concept of 'grown'—where the food is sourced—from where it is manufactured. The label 'made in Australia from local and imported produce', which you can still see on your shelves, is virtually meaningless to the layman. I must say that I am quite good at reading labels. What is unsaid is as powerful as what is said on one of those labels. Having immersed myself in this subject for over six months, I find trying to buy Australian-grown and Australian-processed ham can still be quite a challenge, let me tell you. I understand how to read that system, but only because I spent six months living, eating, breathing and sleeping it. Clearly, it was not good enough to give the information, so we made a clearer message on that.

The first of those two things is manufacturing, and this government amendment goes to the point of what transformation is. That is a very important point. The other half of the message is the source country. In this case, we could have specified every country in the world, but we chose just to specify Australia so as not to make it too complex and to provide the information that we believed the Australian consumer was looking for: is this Australian? They can pick up the packet—it is in bigger writing than it has ever been in—and there clearly is the green and gold kangaroo and the bar graph, which will give them specific information. I think this will be welcomed by consumers and, in the end, it will be welcomed by producers.

I now come to the issue of the opposition's amendment. It would be fair to say that I have been approached by a number of people in the Australian seafood industry as to why we did not recommend that the new legislation around the country-of-origin food labelling be applied to the final point of sale of seafood, as it is in the Northern Territory—with that final point of sale referring to a cafe or a restaurant. It is a point of view that I have some personal sympathy for. However, there were a number of reasons why the committee did not recommend it. Firstly, if we had, it would have been the only foodstuff that was required to identify its point of origin at the tertiary retail point. We do not force that level of disclosure on beef, processed meats, salad, cheese or any other product, so to do so would mean you would have to make a special case for seafood only. I am not saying that case cannot be made, but it requires some very careful consideration before you would get to that point.

Secondly, the committee only took evidence on this particular issue from the Northern Territory seafood industry and from Australian restaurateurs. Those views were not in concurrence; they were totally opposed. One of the reasons that the Northern Territory has this system is historical. In the Northern Territory—and no-one was quite too sure why—every shop at any level that sells fish must be licensed to do so. That is not the case in the rest of Australia, but in the Northern Territory they have a special fish licence. It would be a brave government that would come out and say, 'We're going to put a new licence on every restaurant and fish outlet in Australia,' without having a very good understanding of what the parameters are and what the repercussions might be of that particular recommendation.

When the committee considered its recommendations, one of the things that I was very keen on, and the rest of the committee was keen on, was that we actually have a report that government acted on. In my mind, had we put recommendations around seafood in we would have almost certainly had a report that government would not have acted on, because it would have become a political football very, very quickly and something that a minister—and I would not blame them—throw their hands in the air and say, 'This is all too hard; everybody is fighting with each other.' So we avoided the issue.

What the committee did recommend—and this is where I take a small issue with the opposition's amendment, which I know is proposed in good faith, and I take it that way; but I think the cart is a little before the horse—was that COAG should consider forming an Australian-wide legislation surrounding fish retail, if it so choose to. I would not be beyond the government recommending that the current standing committee for industry look at this issue in more depth. Certainly, the committee that I chaired did not have enough information to make those kinds of recommendations.

I understand the drivers and why the Labor Party has made that amendment, but I do think that they are putting the horse a little bit in front of the cart. The lesson here about the successful adoption of most of the recommendations of our report was that we had done a lot of spadework. We actually understood exactly where we were going and we knew what we wanted to do. I think that building-block process is a better way of getting there.

In returning very briefly to the specific government amendments in this bill, what the bill does is clarify the safe harbour clauses referring to significant transformation. That in itself was something that the committee spent some time on—firstly, understanding what safe harbours were and then, secondly, getting our mind around the concept of significant transformation. Some of the examples used are: dicing tomatoes, to use another food term, will no longer cut the mustard; and reconstituting dehydrated goods. The amendment removes the 50 per cent production costs clauses. So it is an effort to make things more understandable and clearer for industry to use. What we want is a simple process that industry embraces because it works.

As has been alluded to many times in this debate, while it was not the primary reason we inquired to advantage Australian farmers are manufacturer, I have no doubt that good information, in this world where our global supply chain is sometimes questioned, will work in our favour and for our farmers and manufactures, but not in such an overt way as to offend those international trade obligations that I spoke about earlier that are so important to our farming and manufacturing businesses.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I speak both to the amendments made to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 and also to Labor's amendment talking about the importance of labelling of seafood. This issue around proper country-of-origin labelling has been an issue close to my heart for some time. Indeed, I was pleased to have moved a private member's motion in this place in October 2010, really putting a focus and highlight about how important country-of-origin labelling was to my electorate—not only the importance of having very clear labels about where food comes but also the importance of the misleading labels that were often attached to food.

There has been a lot of talk about how influential the committee process was in developing this policy. I am very pleased that, while I was not on that committee, I made my own submission on behalf of residents in my electorate to the Representatives' Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry inquiry into the country-of-origin labelling system. I was very pleased to have been able to make that on behalf of my constituents. Indeed, I have written and spoken many times about it.

The reason this issue is so important to people in my electorate is: quite fundamentally, people want to know what they are eating. The want to know what they are eating and they want to know where that food was grown. It is a very, very simple proposition, and it is something that people have raised with me many, many times. When we saw labels such as 'Made from local and imported ingredients', people were very confused. People are confused about what that actually means. If you pick up some sort of tin of product and you read that, it is very hard to decipher what that means and where the local produce comes from.

After this was raised with me on numerous occasions—in fact, many, many times—we actually had a look into this. What we found is what has been highlighted and what this bill takes steps to address: if you transform a product here in Australia then you can say it is made in Australia. That means that product may well have been grown in a different country, but, because of the transformation that it goes through—as the previously speaker said it may be dehydrated and rehydrated back here in Australia; or, indeed, I had issues around a range of different processes that the food went through—it then allowed a 'Made in Australia' label to be put on. Now, if you think it is made in Australia, then you would assume—and it would be a simple assumption to make—that, indeed, that food was also grown in Australia as well. Many people, when they found this not to be the case, were very upset. It was regularly raised with me about this type of labelling.

Also, when I looked into the definition of 'Made in Australia', 'Manufactured in Australia', 'Made from local and imported ingredients', there was no consistent way to communicate what was actually grown in Australia for consumers to make informed decisions. Then there was the 'Australian owned' label as well. As it was being accompanied by the Australian flag on that label, it meant that the company only had to be Australian owned. In fact, none of the food had to be grown or manufactured in Australia.

The lack of consistency and the lack of definitions have been a problem for a significant amount of time. I think we are now taking steps in the right direction, both with this piece of legislation and with the new labelling process that will, over the next two years, phase in the percentage that is grown in Australia and that is made in Australia, so that people have very clear information but also a visual context in which to make that decision.

I am still disappointed that, where the product is not grown in Australia, where it was actually grown will not necessarily be identified on the product. I heard the previous speaker talk about how complicated it can get, and I recognise that it is not an easy thing to work through, especially when—with tinned food, for example—you may have ingredients coming from a variety of places. However, other countries have worked out how to identify the origin of products, or the majority of products used—obviously, not for every single product used in a tin of canned food, but for a significant proportion of them. I will keep advocating to make sure that as much information as possible about where the product comes from, where it was grown, where it was manufactured and how it came to be on the shelves in this country is provided to consumers. Ultimately, an informed consumer is the best consumer, and it does give consumers the confidence to make those informed decisions. It is something I know that CHOICE has campaigned for for a long time, and I have to say they have done a good job when it comes to food labelling by regularly bringing this issue into the public sphere.

As I mentioned, it is in the national interest that we get on top of this. That is why Labor will be supporting these changes to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill as it amends the Competition and Consumer Act, altering the country-of-origin labelling safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law.

Safe harbour provisions are designed to provide businesses with certainty about the types of claims they can make regarding country-of-origin labelling without breaching the Australian Consumer Law. I think some of the examples that have been brought to me by consumers have sailed pretty close to the wind when it comes to the Australian Consumer Law; however, these issues have not been taken up and have not been prosecuted. I hope that this legislation, through really tightening and amending these provisions, will make it much clearer about when claims can and cannot be made.

Changes to the country-of-origin labelling requirement for food sold in Australia were announced—as mentioned—in July 2015 and came into effect on July 2016, with that two-year transition period for industry. I know that people in my electorate and growers alike are looking forward to this transition period being over, so we can start seeing these labels everywhere on our shelves as we walk up and down the shopping centre aisles. I really think that consumers are a lot more aware about where their food is grown. There are issues around health—we saw that with the hepatitis scare that affected this country very recently. It was something that I think jolted us all into action, but people in my electorate were already talking about this issue. They were already raising it with me and were already concerned.

When it comes to the changes, this may be an example of the parliament catching up with the people of Australia. I think consumers are very conscious about their health and want to know where their food comes from but, equally, I think Australians want to support Australian farmers. They want to support locally grown products, and that can often be seen through the large numbers of people turning up at farmers markets. I know there are farmers markets in and around my electorate selling local produce, and people like to go there and support local farmers.

I will pick up the member for Grey on one issue: he said that people want the cheapest food possible, and sometimes that is not the food grown in Australia. I have to say that, if he goes down to some of the farmers markets in or near my electorate, you can get a bargain—it is a lot cheaper than perhaps going to your local supermarket or indeed buying a can of food. There is some really good, cheap, fresh produce available straight from the farm gate, and I would encourage people who have not been to the Willunga Farmers Market to get down there and enjoy that, as well as the Adelaide Farmers' Market or the Adelaide Central Market. We have some wonderful produce on offer.

It is an important issue that we need to get on top of. That is why I think that, once this two-year transition period is over, people will be cheering about the fact that they will now know the percentage of Australian produce within products. Labor has made an amendment to this that would see labelling go further when it comes to seafood, and I will continue to advocate for much clearer labelling of food, particularly identifying not only the percentage of Australian-made food or Australian produced and grown food but also where the majority of the food may have originated from. We need to continue to push that. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more.

Finally, I would say that this is an important amendment. It is something that my constituents have been pushing for for some time. It is something that, as I said, I have made representations on, whether it be private member's motions, submissions to the committee or speeches in this place, and I am very, very pleased to see some movement. I commend this amendment, as well as Labor's amendment, to the House, look forward to the new labelling regime coming in and still will this House to do better.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. This is a good news bill. If you are a consumer like me, you most likely read food packaging to better understand where the product and its ingredients originate. I want to identify the origins of the product and ingredients so I can use this information to help make an informed decision to support local produce. Too often, consumers are faced with meaningless claims on labels like, 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This probably means that the food may have been only minimally processed, packaged, sliced or canned in Australia.

As consumers, we assume that businesses undertake stringent tests to attain and illustrate their 'made in' status on their products. However, as a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan, I must also acknowledge that these tests are often unnecessarily burdensome, complex and costly.

I spoke in this House back in 2011 on this very issue—an issue that affects all conscientious consumers. In fact, at the time, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council had released the Blewett report, which sought the extension of country-of-origin laws 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. However, those sitting opposite at the time did not support this recommendation because it was all too hard.

This bill, however, implements part of the coalition government's country-of-origin labelling reforms—reforms that benefit both consumers and businesses. Basically put, this bill will simplify country-of-origin labelling for consumers. It will simplify and clarify the safe-harbour provisions within the Australian Consumer Law. In doing so, this bill will ensure that minor processes, like packaging and canning, do not justify 'made in' claims.

As the daughter of a farmer, like many of my constituents and, indeed, colleagues in this place I support Australian farmers. But to do this, we want to know whether the food we buy is from Australia or elsewhere, and if it was made or merely packaged here. We really want to know how much of it was grown here by our farmers. The mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirements for food will now be enhanced and moved from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law.

We have all seen the well-known kangaroo-in-a-triangle symbol. Under the new information standard, this symbol will be required on many foods found on retail shelves around Australia, identifying those that were grown, produced or made in Australia. This bill will see reforms that will give Australian consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they purchase.

However, I would like to point out that these reforms do not seek to impose excessive burdens on businesses to conform to country-of-origin laws. These reforms will not only provide further consistency of labelling for consumers but also support businesses to use terms like 'made in' and 'product of' with greater certainty. Businesses will be less inclined to make those meaningless origin claims like 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' that currently confuse consumers.

As a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan and, indeed, a former small business owner myself, I understand firsthand the impact that regulatory burden has on their operations. I mentioned before the excessive red tape of complex production cost tests that are also difficult to administer. These tests strain businesses with unnecessary regulatory burden. Most notably, this amendment removes the production cost test and simplifies the testing regime used to justify country-of-origin claims by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means. Instead, businesses in my electorate and around Australia will now find it easier to make reliable country-of-origin representations through a clarified substantial transformation test.

And the good news does not end there. In present value terms, the removal of the production cost test will realise total savings of $49 million per year or an enormous $550 million over 20 years for businesses. Given that one of the themes of this reform is simplicity, it is quite clear that these savings will allow businesses to better focus on their core activities, invest in their future and create jobs. Through interaction with my local chambers of commerce and business owners, I hear firsthand that these beneficial reforms will be welcomed.

The government is also working with industry to digitise food product information in order to better position consumers and businesses in the future. These are reforms that consumers and businesses want.

This is yet another way that the coalition government is supporting business and taking into account the voices of consumers in Australia. It is important that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity to ensure the best possible outcomes for consumers and businesses alike. I congratulate the Turnbull government for listening to the issues and concerns of Australian consumers and businesses regarding this key issue. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.