Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've often said in this place and at dozens of community meetings and listening posts all over my electorate, I want to help make my electorate of Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. I want to make sure that our young people can get the very best education, build a rewarding career and retire in comfort and dignity without ever having to move away from the Sunshine Coast. To make that a reality, we need to bring new jobs to our community. As the Sunshine Coast grows, we must diversify and welcome new industries. With the right encouragement, I believe that the defence industry, high-tech manufacturing, health and aged-care services and professional services are all sectors which should be at the heart of our region. We already have businesses in my electorate that are expanding and succeeding in all of those sectors, and I'm doing what I can to encourage them.

However, there is one sector which, with the right support, is sure to be an important part of that future Sunshine Coast economy and which is particularly relevant to the bill before us today. I'm sure that members on all sides of the chamber would agree—those that have been there—that the Sunshine Coast has the best beaches and the best seafood in Australia. I think we all know that. What is less well known is that the Sunshine Coast also has the largest long-line tuna and prawn fishing fleets on the east coast of Australia. You could say that Mooloolaba is our nation's fishing capital. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast generates $42.5 million in direct sales every year, with more than $30 million in exports. Throughout South-East Asia, people are serving Mooloolaba prawns and Coral Sea tuna caught in our local waters. This fishing sector, already substantially successful and not at the mercy of tourism cycles, is exactly the sort of industry we need to encourage on the Sunshine Coast.

In my electorate I've been working hard to do just that. In April last year I showed the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources some of the hardworking fishing businesses that operate out of Mooloolaba and gave them the opportunity to speak to the minister about issues that concern them. Subsequent to that visit, I set up a Fisher Commercial Fishing Industry Council, which is a mouthful, in my electorate to go along with my Defence Industry Council. Members who have heard me speak before will know how committed I am to the promotion of defence industry in Fisher, and my foundation of an equivalent council for the commercial fishing sector is an indication of how important I believe that industry will be to our future.

The Fisher Commercial Fishing Industry Council first met in October last year and is due to meet again in just a few weeks. We've discussed a range of issues, from marine parks to the dredging of the Mooloolah River mouth and also the Mooloolaba Harbour. I want to take this opportunity to thank Heidi and Parvo Walker of Walker Seafoods, Paul and Mike Williams of P & M Williams Enterprises, Jim Utterleymoore of Paddock Wood, Adam Whan of 4 Seas, Johnny Rockliff of Rockliff Seafood, as well as Les Apps and Jason Simpson of Aussie Red Crab, for getting involved in this council. I'd also like to give a good shout-out to David Ellis from Tuna Australia for his advocacy on behalf of these local businesses. It's been fantastic to see how engaged our local fishing industry is and how they share a vision for the future of fishing on the Sunshine Coast.

To ensure that this vision comes to fruition and we build a thriving and expanding fishing industry on the Sunshine Coast, we need the right legislative framework from the federal government. The government has already taken action on one of the important issues raised to me by my council: repairing the disastrous marine parks plan created by Julia Gillard's Labor government and masterminded by the Member for Watson. This increased the size of our marine parks to almost 40 per cent of Commonwealth waters. In July last year, the government acted, releasing a new, smarter marine parks management plan. The size of the parks stays the same under the new plan, ensuring that the environmental outcomes will be world class, but only 20 per cent of the marine parks will be designated green zones, where no fishing can happen. In much of the rest, features on the sea floor will be protected and oil and gas exploration prohibited, but sustainable fishing in the water column will be able to take place. This will halve the economic impact of marine parks on commercial fishers across the country.

However, we now need to deal with another threat to our fishing and seafood industries which risks a larger, more devastating impact. That is the import of contaminated foods and, in particular, the import of contaminated raw foodstuffs. The domestic prawn industry in Australia, including businesses in my own electorate of Fisher, has been worth over $350 million a year to the national economy. Australian businesses catch approximately 25,000 tonnes of prawns every year. However, in November of 2016, an outbreak of white spot disease was found among prawns in seven Queensland farms on the Logan River. By January 2017, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association was suggesting that the outbreak was already affecting the livelihoods of 100 Australian families. The disease spread to wild prawns in Moreton Bay, just south of my electorate, during 2017. It became necessary for the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to impose restrictions on fishing and movement of uncooked prawns from the Moreton Bay region.

The source of the disease was not immediately clear, but Dr Ben Diggles and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources found, after detailed investigation, that the most likely source was infected imported prawns. White spot disease was also found in a high proportion of imported, uncooked prawns bought within 10 kilometres of infected farms. It was necessary for the Director of Biosecurity, with the Deputy Prime Minister's support, to suspend all raw prawn imports to Australia from white-spot-affected countries for six months.

Fortunately for the fishers of my electorate, the electorate of Fisher, the disease was contained before it reached our region. However, for businesses in the Moreton Bay region and on the Logan River, the impact was devastating. At the seven prawn farms on the Logan River, it was necessary to destroy all of their prawns. One of the largest prawn farms in Australia, Gold Coast Marine Aquaculture, lost 25 million black tiger prawns as part of its eradication efforts. Fishing businesses around Moreton Bay were unable to transport and sell their prawns, while businesses like that owned by one of my own constituents, Craig Winkel, were badly impacted by the import ban. Mr Winkel's company, AGFC Group, exported frozen Australian prawns to Vietnam for processing before re-importing them for local sale—a process that became impossible once the ban was in place.

If the disease had spread further, let alone become endemic in the wild, the impact on the fishing industry in my electorate and all over the East Coast could have been catastrophic. As it was, in all, the outbreak cost tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Ridge Partners estimated that the cost to the Logan River region alone was $49½ million. In addition, the Commonwealth invested $20 million in additional financial support for the farmers, while the Queensland government spent more than $50 million in controlling the outbreak and assisting the affected industry.

As of December 2017, there are still prawn farms in the region that are closed and unable to raise stock. The Deputy Prime Minister has taken action to improve Australia's biosecurity system at the border. The government has invested an additional $200 million over four years to strengthen the national biosecurity system through the Agricultural competitiveness white paper. The Commonwealth's total expenditure for biosecurity this financial year amounts to $752.7 million, representing an increase of $149.3 million since the coalition came to government.

In addition, the department is also undertaking a review of the biosecurity risks of, and import conditions for, prawns and prawn products for human consumption. The review will include comprehensive scientific and risk analysis and is expected to take up to two years. However, as Dr Helen Scott-Orr said in her Inspector-General of Biosecurity report into the white spot outbreak: 'Governments alone cannot deliver biosecurity.' We need more than just tighter border controls. We need importers themselves to contribute proactively to ensuring that these threats do not reach our shores. That is where this legislation comes in—not only in the case of seafood, which is so important to my electorate of Fisher, but in all parts of our food import sector. The bill will allow us to go beyond relying on border testing alone. As supply chains become more global, it's necessary for us to reach beyond our borders and satisfy ourselves that food safety is being maintained at every stage of the chain.

This legislation will achieve that by requiring importers to provide robust documentary evidence which shows that they have effective, internationally recognised food-safety controls in place throughout the supply chain. It will also require importers to account for the food's journey to market, both one step back and one step forward in the supply chain. It will give those requirements teeth by ensuring that the government's emergency powers extend to holding food in the process of import at the border when its safety is not certain. It will do this while ensuring that the requirements are not excessively onerous, by recognising the food safety regimes of other countries that are equivalent to our own in their entirety, simplifying import from those safer jurisdictions. This legislation is proportionate, considered and a necessary part of our action to help prevent Australia's biosecurity regime being so damagingly compromised, again, in the future.

I'm delighted to say that, as of December 2017, tens of thousands of samples of wild crabs and prawns have been tested without a case of white spot being identified. We have reason to be cautiously optimistic that once again this outbreak has been controlled. Australia is the only major prawn exporting nation that does not suffer from endemic white spot disease. It's a great example, but it is far from the only unique claim we can make for our world-class agricultural sector and our biosecurity regime. It is a precious legacy which we must pass unspoiled to our children if food production is to be a part of our increasingly prosperous future on the Sunshine Coast and throughout Australia. We need these further controls to secure that legacy and support that growth, and, for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 has been sitting on the Notice Paper for some time, so it's good to have the opportunity to finally speak to the bill and to the amendment that's been moved by the member for Hunter. We can also talk more broadly about the importance of biosecurity here in Australia. We hear a lot about the clean, green image of Australia and how Asia and our other trading partners want our products. It's quite often linked to why we had to push through these free trade agreements. However, we have to work hard as a nation, and the government should be held accountable for ensuring that we have the strictest and strongest biosecurity regime in place to ensure that we have a product to sell—to ensure that we have a product we can sell at the top price.

Last week I had the opportunity to be in Tasmania meeting with cherry, berry and apple farmers. We talked about various issues. Of course, as this place knows, because of the activism and speeches from Tasmanian members of parliament, they are confronting a real crisis when it comes to fruit fly in their state. Because of a lax biosecurity, because there has been a breakdown between the state and federal governments and because the state government has not enforced strict biosecurity measures, they now have fruit fly in Tasmania, and it's spreading. It's having a direct impact on those growers.

At the cherry farm we were at they were sorting the cherries. Looking at the cherries they send to China—China does pay top price. I'd never seen cherries that big! We get the little ones here in our supermarkets. China definitely does pay top dollar to get the best berries. But, because of the fruit fly outbreak—the cherry farm is in that zone—China said, 'Your cherries are banned.' So then they had to find a second buyer, and that was Hong Kong. The difference in price between China and Hong Kong, though, was $9 a box. That farmer and that community have just taken a big hit. They did find a buyer, so they're relieved, but, again, $20 to $11 is a big price markdown.

I'm disappointed that we haven't heard any word or any action plan from this government. We've got a new minister who could have started fresh and jumped in. Why isn't there, in this country, an urgent response plan? I'm from central Victoria. We have apple orchards and we have a problem with fruit fly in our part of the world and wouldn't wish it upon anybody. I've heard our small growers raise it at farmers markets: 'The fruit fly this season is particularly bad.' It is just devastating, since we know how bad fruit fly is, to see that the federal government and the state government have not reacted urgently to try and stop it in Tasmania, because Tasmania does have an edge over its competitors when it competes internationally against New Zealand and other countries. The South Australian government have stepped up. They're doing a lot more. They are quite aggressively going after the problem with fruit fly, but we haven't seen the same reaction when it comes to Tasmania. I flew to Tasmania, but my mum took the ferry over. We were just two people entering the state, and we didn't receive any warnings. We weren't told, 'Dump your fruit; we're facing this crisis.' There's been a real lack of reaction from this government, from the new minister and from the state government. We need to work together, collaboratively, with industries, departments, state governments and politicians to protect our biosecurity regime. We need to ensure that it is funded and that we're working closely to stop disease coming into this country.

The amendment before us does strengthen the current risk management approach towards imported foods and it will create better health outcomes for consumers. Labor supports the bill because it recognises that, whilst Australia has a robust imported food safety system, we can always do more to improve it, especially given that Australia is a country that imports great amounts of food from other countries through the trade agreements that I mentioned. We also produce a lot in the way of agriculture, so we do want to stop any kind of cross-contamination and food-borne illnesses that could have serious consequences not just for the health of Australians but for the product that we're growing here in this country. Everybody in this place, in their speeches, has been referring to the hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 linked to the importation of frozen berries. It was a debacle. Over 13 people were hospitalised in relation to that case. Again, the response from the government at the time was slow. It linked it to proper country-of-origin labelling, but, when you picked up a packet of berries, it told you it was from China. It didn't tell you, by the way, 'This product from China might have hep A,' but the product was clearly labelled 'From China'. That didn't affect what happened. It was just a bit of a cop-out—'Look over here'—by the then minister, the member for New England. We need to do better than just say, 'Look at the packet.' We need to ensure that product that is contaminated does not enter our country.

We've had our scares in the pork industry. We've had our scares in the chicken meat industry. In my electorate of Bendigo, a regional electorate, we produce Australian pork and a lot of chicken meat. There are strict importation controls around chicken meat and pork. You cannot import pork on the bone, so the bacon that you eat, the Don-KR Castlemaine bacon that is proudly produced in my electorate, is made from imported pork fillet. That is allowed, and most of it comes from Canada or Europe. However, the hams that you might have had at Christmas from Don's were actually Australian pork—because we have strict rules around the food-borne illnesses that can occur from pork on the bone in this country. That is why we've got that clean, green protection in place.

However, a few years ago there was a situation in which bones and pork were being imported separately and then being put back together here in this country and sold as pork on the bone. You'd think, 'Who would actually go to that extent?' But people did. The collaboration of the Victorian government and the former Labor government quickly stopped that from happening. Stopping that didn't just protect the Australian pork industry; it also protected Australian consumers. Can you imagine what kind of product you could be eating if you brought in the bones in one parcel and the ham in another parcel, put them back together, packaged it all up and tried to sell it? You start to get horrified about what you could be eating.

The chicken industry is another one. We know that poultry has had issues overseas. Because of the biosecurity that we have in place in this country, we've been able to stop avian flu and a lot of those viruses overseas from getting into our chicken meat industry and egg industry. However, these industries consistently raise with me that they are worried that the import food controls around their industries could be weakened. It is an ongoing issue that they have in the back of their minds—that import controls could be relaxed and that their industry could face risk. Pork Australia recently raised with me their concern about partly cooked product. As an example, some of the precooked meals that you might buy at the supermarket or in a restaurant are being produced in the United States and are being packaged up, partly cooked, and put in sauces and sent to this country. They're worried about that food and are calling for it to be investigated.

These are examples of the risks we face in this country, and this is why we need to continue to invest in the research on import food controls. It is why we support the bill that is before us, but we really call upon the government to do more. They have focused on shifting public sector jobs around our country, shifting agencies, which further weakens them and distracts people from what we need to be focused on. We need to make sure we are always doing our utmost in this place to stop unwanted disease coming in, to protect the Australian markets that we have and to help promote our clean, green image.

I have mentioned the problem with raspberries and hep B, and how the minister of the time tried to dismiss it as a food-labelling issue. It was not. I have mentioned the biosecurity fruit fly threat we now have in Tasmania. Still, to this day, we have failed to see a decent action plan from the minister to try to stop the spread of that horrible disease in Tasmania. We have heard from previous speakers concerns about white spot disease and the problems it created in Queensland. The previous speaker was absolutely right: the seafood we have on the Sunshine Coast is world class; it is the best. Again, you won't see those prawns at Coles or Safeway. Unfortunately, in the rest of the country we don't get to benefit from this fabulous seafood that you can buy literally off the boat in Mooloolaba. It goes to those top markets overseas. But that was seriously at risk last year and the year before because of the outbreak of white spot disease.

We can always be faster—and we should be faster—in reacting to these biosecurity threats. We need to acknowledge that we live in a time when people move in and out of country and move across borders. We need to be doing more to educate our public. The fact that today you can get off a boat or a plane in Tasmania and nobody is there to say, 'Dump your fruit,' is a real problem. The fact that we have people coming into our country who don't understand our strict biosecurity rules and are innocently making mistakes is a problem. It is up to government to educate. It is up to government to legislate. It is up to government to make sure there is enough funding in this space so that the inspectors, the public servants and the agencies are able to crack down on these outbreaks when they occur. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not going to happen. We need to be ready to react when it does happen.

Whilst Labor support the bill that is before us, it would have been nicer if this had been brought on sooner by the government. It's noncontroversial; it strengthens what we have in place. But, equally, we call upon the government to invest more to make sure we are able to crack down on these issues when they happen.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, in the context that, at the end of the day, food safety is consumer safety. While food safety is not managed with the oversight of the ACCC or the ACL, the Australian Consumer Law, consumers of food—Australian and imported, fresh and processed—obviously want to know that it is safe to eat. It is appropriate that we go to the most recent example that is in the forefront of most consumers' minds when it comes to food. That relates to frozen berries and the hepatitis A scandal in 2015. At the time of these events back in 2015, the member for New England, who was in control of the portfolio, said that the answer to these dilemmas was country-of-origin labelling reform. We welcome the COOL reform and acknowledge the important role that labelling plays in empowering consumers to make choices in the supermarket aisle that are right for them and their families. That is why we supported the competition and consumer amendment country-of-origin labelling legislation when it came to this place shortly after I was appointed to my current role with responsibilities for consumer affairs matters in 2016.

This is not rocket science. Consumers simply want clear, quick, easy to find, easy to understand information about the origin of the products they seek to purchase. Fundamentally, consumers just want to be informed about what it is they're buying, where it's from and what's in it. These, after all, are not unreasonable requests from consumers as we reach a time in the evolution of food consumption where, quite rightly, consumers are concerned about the adverse long-term health impacts of what it is they're eating, particularly in a context where we see an inevitable but tragic march in the current climate towards obesity, particularly in children. Now more than ever, it is important that consumers gain a greater understanding in relation to what it is they're purchasing insofar as food is concerned. That is why country-of-origin labelling and better labels about what is in the food that is being purchased are very helpful. The changes to Australia's country-of-origin labelling arrangements will strengthen the regime and support consumers to make informed choices, which has got to be a good thing regardless of what colour you wear when you come to this place, be it blue, red or some other colour.

Regarding measurement labelling, whilst I think it's good that we see country-of-origin labelling, we're gravely concerned that the government's seeming commitment to clear product labelling does not extend to measurement labelling. Apparently, in response to European cosmetics companies, the government is reviewing whether it should retain the requirement for product measurements—the weight or volume of a product a consumer is purchasing—and whether that should be displayed on the front of a packet. When you go to the shops, thinking that you're going to spend, say, five bucks for a packet of Tim Tams and knowing, at the end of the day, there are going to be 12 Tim Tams in that packet, I'm sure, as consumers, we all know there is nothing worse than finding six months later when you get out your $5 note that you're paying the same amount of money but there are only 10 Tim Tams in your packet. There is nothing worse than being two Tim Tams short of a packet—some have accused some on the other side of, perhaps, a lack of character in that regard—but paying the same price and not knowing about it. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of information.

Believe it or not, this is actually because some foreign companies find it inconvenient to change their labelling in the Australian market. For that reason the entire product measurement labelling system is under threat. Consumers across Australia are going to have to spend longer at the supermarket trying to work out whether the purchases they make are subject to that terrible concept of packet shrinkage. Are you getting the same amount of chips in your packet depending upon how much you have to pay?

These things ought to be made clear for consumers. If anything, this government is going the other way.

So I'd urge the minister to listen to the thousands of Australians who have made submissions on behalf of consumers. Don't make it harder for them to know what it is they're buying. And I note that, despite the fact that consultation closed midway through last year, the review is apparently still 'under active consideration'—whatever that means. I'd ask the government exactly when they intend to put consumers' minds at rest about that terrible notion of packet shrinkage. Contrary to what the member for New England said at the time, a label alone does not make a product safe. Actually, it takes a lot more nuance than just telling people not to buy products from a certain country.

There is always more that can be done for product safety. The Australian Consumer Law is deliberately subject to regular review to make sure that it remains robust in the face of changing circumstances and of course new markets. Indeed, the ACL report published in April last year recommended a suite of reforms to the law that were subsequently discussed by federal, state and territory consumer affairs ministers in August last year. The meeting decided to kick the idea of a general safety provision off to more consultation and research, whereas, again, it's a commonsense provision that simply requires manufacturers to take the very reasonable step of ensuring that they have a duty to market products that are inherently safe. You'd think that was already part of the Australian Consumer Law, but it's actually not. We say that it is no quantum leap to ensure that manufacturers of products these days have that obligation in an increasingly busy world where consumers are subject to more and more choice.

As legislators we cannot abrogate our responsibility to keep Australians safe by blaming foreign governments' food safety regimes. So, finally, two years after the frozen berries hepatitis scandal, we actually have a bill that will address the deficiencies in Australia's food importation safety arrangements. That is why Labor welcomes this bill and will support it in the interests of the health and wellbeing of those wonderful Australian consumers.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Perth for his contribution, although I do note that he was opining about the number of Tim Tams in a particular packet—he either does a lot of exercise or doesn't consume many Tim Tams! I'm not sure. I, on the other hand, self-evidently consume far too many Tim Tams or, alternatively, don't do enough exercise. But I'll let others make that determination.

I'm equally grateful to hear that the Labor Party supports what is an excellent piece of legislation—nay, an important piece of legislation and I would go so far as to say a critically important piece of legislation—the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill. At the heart of these reforms is ensuring that foods that are imported into this country are safe for consumption. There can be perhaps no more important motivation. Sadly, even in Australia, where we have a robust food safety system, foodborne illnesses remain a serious and costly public health and safety issue for government and for industry. Obviously there are individual consequences of food safety incidents abroad, where the losses fall sharply, but there is also economic loss in terms of reduced consumer confidence.

A little-known fact about my electorate is that we are, by employment numbers, the largest food manufacturing electorate of the 150 divisions in this place. Not only do we grow product in a primary sense but we are at the apex of food processing nationwide, because, thankfully, in very many cases we process that primary product. I have three internationally certified export abattoirs. There are great producers like Blue Lake Milling, producing rolled oats in the upper south-east, and myriad wineries. And, if you're spreading Philly on your toast in the morning, that's come from the south-east of South Australia, from Mount Gambier in particular.

Why might I be referring to these businesses?

I mention them in this context because very many of them use imported ingredients in the food manufacturing processes. They are by no means significant components of their manufacturing business, but in many cases they can't access the ingredients they need in these processing scenarios. They need to be confident that the foods imported under Australia's regulatory framework are safe for consumption, because they are effectively, literally, baked into the products that are then sold on as Australian products. Of course, that brings into question the very real sovereign risk associated with secondary use of an international ingredient, which is then effectively adopted as an Australian product. Should that create problems internationally it would have a devastating effect on the food processing and manufacturing sectors not only in my electorate but nationwide.

The bill provides a range of practical measures designed to strengthen and address the limitations of the current imported food regulatory system. We saw those limitations in 2015. Those of us who were in here, in this place, at that time dealt up close and personal with the hepatitis A outbreak from imported frozen berries, which highlighted those limitations. In response, we're increasing importers' accountability for food safety; we're ensuring they're sourcing safe food; we're improving the ability to monitor and manage new and emerging food safety risks; and we're improving food safety incident responses. We're doing all of that, I'm pleased to say, with a bipartisan approach, for which I congratulate the opposition. We do spend a lot of time in this place arguing the toss, but I'm constantly reminded, as I remind many of my constituents, and particularly younger students that I speak to, about how much of the good work we do in this place we do hand in glove with each other.

It is startling to know that in the financial year ending 30 June 2016 we imported $16 billion worth of food. Of course, in that period we exported a far larger amount—$40 billion worth of food. But we need to ensure that the food imported into our country is safe. There are some implicit undertakings, I think. When people purchase a good they need to know it's safe for consumption and fit for purpose. These regulatory changes improve the robust nature of our food safety system and will go some way to ensuring we have a stronger system. No system, sadly, is foolproof. There always remains a risk, but this process is about mitigating those risks—learning the lessons from the hep A outbreak in 2015 and baking them into a stronger food management system that is based around science, which makes importers into this country accountable for their choices and which ensures the risk of further food-borne illnesses and systemic outbreaks are limited.

In terms of accountability—obviously, ours is a government that believes in individual responsibility—I was very pleased to note that importers will face a full range of penalties on a strict liability basis, including up to 10 years jail and fines greater than $100,000, should they seek to thumb their nose at these regulatory limitations. Obviously we have regulatory responsibility for food that comes over our border and we want to make sure that the regime operates both as a general and specific deterrence: a specific deterrence to individuals who want to do the wrong thing, but a general deterrence to those who might be minded to consider doing the wrong thing and might be dissuaded from doing that based on the changes that we have put in place.

We enjoy a world-class food safety system in Australia. These changes, in short, will strengthen that system, enabling Australians to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world and to do it safely, with confidence. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high-quality and safe food, which we know is highly sought after internationally. In turn, this will deliver benefits for farmers, for our economy and for our nation as we lead to the export of high-quality, safe food. A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation. I commend this bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important matter. To put it in context, I want to read directly from the explanatory memorandum as to why it's important and what this legislation, the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, proposes to do. It says:

The Bill will:

I outline those points because I'll come to them later in my comments with respect to this legislation.

As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, food imports and exports are important to the Australian economy. In 2016-17, Australia imported $16.2 billion of food—indeed, one department says it was $17.5 billion—and we exported $42.4 billion in the same year, so it's a huge economic sector. Australia's largest source countries of food are New Zealand, the USA, China, Thailand and Singapore. I also note that there has been a 10 per cent growth rate over the last five years for imported processed foods—I stress the word 'processed'—and there has been an almost eight per cent increase, as a five-year growth rate, for imported unprocessed foods. I want to differentiate between the two because they are two different types of foods and they're managed in different ways when they come in in terms of the biosecurity risks that they pose. Food importation is a growing business in this country. I understand that there are now some 16,000 registered food importers around the country. They have employees and they have made investments in this country, so it's a huge issue to each of them and, I suspect, to the communities in which they are based.

The other point I note is that inspections are based on what are referred to as perceived risks. If there's a perceived high risk, up to 100 per cent of products are inspected. That risk will reduce over time if there are no anomalies or problems. If it is a low-risk importer then five per cent is inspected, but that will increase if there are breaches. You would think that is the way it ought to be. I also note that Australia has some 15 importers who operate under a food import compliance agreement, which means that they have their own arrangements in place in terms of how they are licensed to operate. Australia is a party to some government-to-government certification agreements. I make those points just to highlight the complexity of how food is managed when it comes into Australia or leaves Australia. Separate to the economic and social importance, we have environmental assets in this country that are estimated to be worth some $6 trillion, and they will possibly be at risk if disease and pest plants come into this country.

Of course, the issue that seems to be at the forefront of most people's minds is the question of public health and safety. I can understand why that is the case, because not only can it cause some serious health consequences to people who consume food that is in some way unfit for human consumption but also once the food is consumed and, therefore, a problem arises, serious trade disagreements between countries can occur as a result of what has happened. The regulation impact statement points out that in 2010—and I think the member for Hunter made this very point—there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal foodborne illnesses in Australia and some 86 deaths. How many of those were related to imported foods is not known, but what we do know is that not all countries have the robust food inspection and growing regulations that exist in Australia. We know that 33 cases of hepatitis A were associated with frozen berries that were imported from China in 2015. Last year, another four cases were detected from berries that came from the same place—possibly from the same time but had been kept in storage. We also know that in 2013 a 10-year-old boy died in Australia from an allergic reaction to imported food that contained undeclared milk, which the boy happened to be allergic to. I have no doubt that there are many more foodborne illnesses that occur in Australia than those that are recorded or registered.

Contaminated imported agricultural products also pose a very serious and real threat to the Australian agricultural sector and the livelihoods of Australian food growers. We have heard in this debate about the devastation caused to the Queensland prawn industry by white spot disease, which, it is very likely, came from imported prawns. Those losses ran into tens of millions of dollars, and I'm not sure if the problem has been rectified as yet. In recent years, Australia's olive oil industry has been undermined by the importation of low-grade oil that was rejected in Europe and then dumped at cheap prices here in Australia. The oil, which allegedly had been poorly processed and stored, posed both a health risk and an economic risk because it undermined the viability of Australian oil producers here in this country, and I suspect that that is still going on. It may well have been masked in some way at the time that it was raised a few years ago, and there might have been some steps taken to ensure that it doesn't continue, but I suspect that it is still going on. Australia, regrettably, because of the strength of our economy, is all too often seen as a dumping ground for all kinds of products—not only food products—that can't be sold in other parts of the world. More recently, there have been the fruit flies detected on Flinders Island, and that also presents a major and very real threat to Tasmanian farmers. The wellbeing and livelihoods of those farmers, and of whole communities, are at risk because of a fruit fly infestation. That, in turn, reflects on the biosecurity control measures that are in place in Tasmania.

The last point I want to make is that we shouldn't always simply assume that the risks are associated only with the handling, processing and storage of foods. The reality is that there are also real risks associated with where the foods come from in respect of the quality of the water used, the quality of the soil in which those foods are produced and the quality of the atmosphere in the surrounding areas. There are parts of the world that are so polluted but still producing food which is then exported to other parts of the world. If I knew the food was coming from those places, I simply wouldn't consume it. I suppose that's one of the reasons why we wanted to change food-labelling laws in this country, so that at least people can make their own choice about what risks they wish to take, particularly with respect to food. As I say, in some parts of the world, water, land and chemical pollution has reached a crisis point and, again, we should be very cautious about buying food from those places—or, at least, consumers should be aware of where the food has come from.

All of these regulations and the points I made earlier on, outlining the specifics of this bill, are important because they're intended to provide confidence to both the food producers and the consumers in this country. But of course if we have regulations which are not able to be policed and implemented, then they have little value and are of little importance. The critical issue with respect to all of this legislation is ensuring that we provide the right resourcing to the agencies that are expected to enforce the very regulations that arise from this legislation.

I stress that point for this reason. About a year ago, Australian meat exports to China from six different locations were suspended. It wasn't the same producer, either. My understanding—and I rely on my memory here—is that there were two or three different producers involved and six locations. So just get the picture here: different producers in different locations, but, in all of those locations, breaches in the export conditions relating to those products were identified, and the Chinese suspended the import of all that product. When I asked the head of the department, 'Does the department carry any responsibility with respect to those breaches, and did it fall down in the inspection of those products?' the department washed its hands of any responsibility.

How can you have a system in place where breaches are occurring, across different manufacturers and food producers in different locations, and none of the breaches are getting picked up at any point? I suspect they didn't get picked up because, quite frankly, the department is underresourced. That's the real reason. So, whilst the government talks about strengthening our biosecurity arrangements and brings in legislation that would do that, the real question is: what resourcing is being provided simultaneously to enable those regulations to be implemented and enforced? I suspect, not enough, and that's why, perhaps, Tasmania, right now has got a fruit fly problem. I understand that there have also been changes made by the state government in Tasmania to its own primary industries department and the staffing arrangements there.

When we consider the importance of this area to Australia, economically, socially and environmentally, it is indeed an area that should get priority. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't. I have spoken with people who work in Customs and the department of agriculture over the years, and it concerns me that they are not adequately resourced to do the job that we ask them to do. If they were better resourced then we would have, and could have, a great deal more confidence that the system is working well. It is not the regulations that we need. It is not the laws that we need. It is actually the resourcing, because those officers, those departmental staff that are out there doing their work every day, know exactly what to do and how to do it, and they know what they are looking for. But the problem is that there's too much work on their plate for them to do everything that needs to be done.

I guess the real concern about all of that is that, in most cases, the department is actually financed and funded by the producers and growers themselves, who have to pay for the inspections. So, if that is the case, there seems to be some kind of imbalance between the funding they are receiving, the work they are doing and the processes that we have for them to operate under, because, if it's a system where the producers, growers and exporters are having to pay for the inspections, there is no excuse for not doing more inspections so that the system is more secure for all Australians.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, as my colleague the member for Makin just did. The bill is designed to make changes to strengthen Australia's current risk-based management approach to food, as we have seen through the many media stories that have been highlighted on the news and everywhere else about all sorts of things going terribly wrong through produce et cetera that's been imported from some overseas countries, and to better protect the health of consumers across Australia. When you think of better protecting the health of consumers, it is paramount that that is done through the systems that we have. When people are sourcing and buying produce they need to know that it's safe, that it's grown in a proper manner and what's in that particular product.

On this side of the House we support the bill because it recognises that, while we have a robust imported food safety system, it needs to be improved. I say that because we have seen some of the outbreaks that have occurred in my own home state. We need to strengthen that system as much as possible so we don't have those media stories that we saw about all sorts of produce that was infected and caused illness in our community.

As a supporter of free but fair trade, I believe that we also need a robust system in place to screen the food we import and ensure we have a level playing field for our producers here in Australia, who go through very stringent regulations to ensure that the food they produce and sell is in accordance to with safety rules.

In 2015 and 2016 Australia imported $16 billion worth of food from every corner in the world. While this figure is great for free trade fundamentalists, it is staggering to think that there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal food-borne illnesses in Australia and 86 deaths in that period. That is clearly not good enough. One death is not good enough. Recent figures from SA Health, the department in South Australia, show that there were 3,150 notifications of food-borne illnesses in 2014. This includes notifications of 10 food-borne diseases under surveillance in South Australia, including salmonella, listeriosis and even typhoid, from foods that were purchased by consumers in South Australia. Some of the others were E. coli infection, and we heard about hepatitis A infection. That's just to mention a few.

In 2015, the well-publicised outbreak of hepatitis A which was linked to imported frozen berries at the time exposed limitations of the current imported food regulatory system. We heard the member for Makin mention this particular outbreak of hepatitis A. Staggeringly, these same 2015 contaminated berries made a cameo resurgence last year. They were again linked to new cases of hepatitis A, including in Victoria, Queensland and again in South Australia, my own home state. This is two years later. They weren't picked up, for some reason. Even though we went through this process two years earlier, they weren't picked up. I suspect the lack of resources to the departments and agencies that patrol had something to do with that. We need to be better resourced. It's one thing to come up with legislation, and it's a good thing that we're strengthening our laws, but we need the resources in the departments, the ministries and the agencies that ensure all of this works. I suspect that that hasn't been done. In fact, I'd be really interested to see what outsourcing has been done, as we have seen in ministries across the board where a lot of outsourcing has been happening and where there have been cuts to public servants. This was two years later.

In addition to this being a food safety concern, as I said, we also need a level playing field for our own producers here in Australia. Unfortunately, the production of food grown and/or processed overseas can often occur in substandard conditions, where they don't have the regulations we have, and this causes problems. Of course, conditions and regulations that would not be tolerated in Australia can send innocent Australian consumers of overseas products to hospital. Why should a parent feel like they're playing Russian roulette with their families', their children's and their loved ones' health every time they visit the supermarket and buy substandard food produced overseas that the government says is okay when we can produce a lot of those products here in our very own backyards with proper regulations and safety? It's clear that they shouldn't feel this way. The economic costs of foodborne illness in Australia are substantial. From doctor visits to time off work and treatment, the reported cost is $1.2 billion per year. This puts pressure on our hospitals, doctors' surgeries, schools and families.

While I support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill, it's disappointing that it took the government this long to put the legislation forward. Previously, the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources took aim at the importing countries and turned his attention to country-of-origin labelling, which was a good thing because consumers need to know where their products are sourced, where they were produced and where they have come from, but we also needed to strengthen Australia's imported food regulatory system. I'm pleased this is finally happening. Back then, the Deputy Prime Minister said he believed there should be clear country-of-origin labelling on all imported foods so consumers knew exactly where a product was coming from, and we agree with that. He said there was a review currently underway and that he would be pushing for proper labelling to be implemented as quickly as possible. Of course, we should have proper country-of-origin labelling. That's a good thing. But maybe other countries around the world are not as concerned as we are about food safety, so we need to seek out—even the Deputy Prime Minister said this back then—locally made products. I support that and encourage all Australians to buy Australian and save themselves a pain in the guts—literally, in some cases.

I think what this government should have done was ensure that this particular legislation came in a lot quicker. Perhaps we would not have had the contaminated frozen berries, which were clearly labelled with country of origin. While the new country-of-origin labelling laws have strengthened consumers' ability to know where products have come from, they didn't do much to ensure that we didn't have these outbreaks again.

The discussion of strengthening our imported food regulatory system started back in 2015 when the Deputy Prime Minister chose to criticise our trading partners, throwing the foreign minister under the bus instead of looking at regulations to strengthen the regulatory systems. We need the government to look at dodgy overseas practices. Particular producers in my electorate have shown me different things that they produce and then they've shown me inferior products that come out marked 'Australian standard' but are truly under standard compared to our own products.

That brings me to my electorate and to the retail success of some of the good retailers in my electorate who are selling good Australian produced products—for example, Romeo's Foodland in South Australia, a great retail group which has gone from strength to strength, and Drakes Supermarkets, another great retail supermarket chain that sources and promotes Australian products. They're both great companies, employing many hundreds of South Australians. Romeo's and Drakes have outlets across Adelaide, including my own local grocery, Foodland at Torrensville, where I source a lot of my family's food. We have been shopping there for many years and in Glenelg South, where Romeo's has an outlet as well.

There is absolutely no substitute for produce bought, supplied, resourced and grown here by local communities. Local producers and suppliers know their reputations are on the line. They know that if they do something wrong it will affect their entire business across the state or across the nation. They also provide local jobs, which are needed desperately in Australia. Local jobs are a benefit of local produce. Providing local jobs is something that can't be outsourced to another country. If you're producing it here, selling it here, growing supermarket businesses and retail outlets, those jobs certainly can't be outsourced to another country, and that is a good thing. Compare this to produce that's shipped in from overseas, sold to the consumer weeks, and sometimes months or even years, after it was harvested, with zero accountability—a product often produced in a country thousands of miles away, where they have completely different regulations to us and a different understanding of food safety.

Another reason that I support this bill is the legislative requirement for documentary evidence from importers to demonstrate they have effective internationally-recognised food safety controls in place—not just for their product but throughout the whole supply chain. As we know, border testing alone is insufficient to provide assurance of food safety. This bill also broadens Australia's emergency powers to allow food to be held at the border. If there is a suspicion of something not quite right, if there's uncertainty about the safety of a particular food, or if the scientific approach to verify its safety hasn't been established, the bill will allow us to hold the food at the border. The bill will provide additional powers to monitor and manage new and emerging risks.

In closing, I would like to say that even though I don't agree with the time it has taken to get this before the House, I do agree with this legislation. It should have been done a lot quicker, but it's an important step forward in keeping our communities safer from food-borne illnesses and diseases, and that should be the case. We should know where the food's coming from—where it's been sourced. Consumers need to feel safe. I think this bill is a step forward in keeping our communities safer.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 because it will strengthen Australia's risk based management approach of imported food. We will also support this bill because it gives greater clarity to consumers as to where their food comes from.

Australian consumers increasingly want to know the country of origin of their food. I am sure consumers across Australia will welcome the mandatory nature of these changes from July this year. For many years, consumer groups like Choice have been campaigning for improved country-of-origin labelling for food. Previous Choice surveys have shown that up to 84 per cent of respondents said that it was crucial or very important for consumers to be able to confidently identify if food was grown in Australia. I also welcome the labelling methodology of a kangaroo and bar chart graphic. It is simple and easily understood, clearly setting out whether the food was grown or made in Australia and what percentage of ingredients in the food or product was Australian grown. There is, however, additional concern that, for products that are not wholly Australian, this methodology does not clearly state from where any additional ingredients come from. I know this is a complex area but believe we should continue to investigate options to give consumers increased confidence in knowing where the food they are eating comes from.

As I have mentioned, a key reason for this legislation is to strengthen our risk based management approach for imported food. When we are talking about imported food, it goes hand in glove that as a country we need a robust biosecurity system. A robust biosecurity system is very topical in my state of Tasmania, where we are currently seeing an outbreak of fruit fly. The Tasmanian fruit industry is worth almost $200 million and employs hundreds of people across the state. The Tasmanian Premier must take responsibility for this emergency. In his first budget, he cut $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget. Documents obtained under right to information show this cut contributed to $1.9 million budget deficit in Biosecurity Tasmania as of August 2015.

The same documents from the Biosecurity Tasmania managers meeting show that the secretary and deputy secretary of that department were adamant they expected Biosecurity Tasmania to have a balanced budget by the end of the 2015-16 year. It is alarming that in the discussion points from this meeting it states, 'Biosecurity Tasmania has already been severely cut in the past and there is little room for further cuts without severely impacting on program areas.' The same points also state, 'Demands from programs exceed Biosecurity's capacity, so prioritisation and reduction of program activity will need to be undertaken.' Clearly, because of the Premier's cuts Biosecurity Tasmania has been forced to make some difficult decisions, and it now seems the chickens have come home to roost. Over the past four years we have seen unacceptable biosecurity breaches in Tasmania, including Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust and Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome.

Tasmania has seen a significant growth in visitors, which is fantastic, but the Liberal Premier and his government have not only cut Biosecurity Tasmania's funding but they are also guilty of being asleep at the wheel, leaving our state exposed. What is even worse is that now, in the middle of this emergency, people are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without any biosecurity checks. This is despite a promise by the state Liberals in 2015 that every flight in and out of Hobart and Launceston would be met by a sniffer dog. I note there are other ports in Tasmania, in my electorate, that do not have any biosecurity checks. On this count alone, the Liberals have failed.

Our hardworking local farmers are now paying the price for state and federal Liberal incompetence. The highly valuable Chinese market is now refusing to take fruit from the control zone. Taiwan has also locked out Tasmanian fruit. Sassafras Orchards, which I visited last week with the member for Bendigo, is now forced to sell their cherries into Hong Kong at half the price they would have received by sending them to China. Such is the incompetence of the Liberal government that 40 kilograms of fresh fruit from within the control zone has been found in an external local market. Strawberries were also seized off the main street of Burnie just this week. On top of this, local cherry tomato producers Marcus and Ellie Brandsema from Turners Beach have been forced to dump 300 kilos of cherry tomatoes. Local producers are facing the real prospect of going out of business.

These are the costs of the Liberals' biosecurity failure for our farmers. We need an aggressive biosecurity system in Tasmania. Our economy depends on it. We do not have it. The national and international damage to Tasmania's reputation as an island state relatively pest and disease free is immeasurable, yet even now the Premier won't take responsibility for this mess. The state Liberals' incompetence is also matched by a failure to act from this Prime Minister and his former agriculture minister. At a national level this government has so far refused to implement recommendations to strengthen our biosecurity, as contained in last year's review report into the Australian biosecurity framework. I have some hope that the new minister, the member for Maranoa, will get this right and take Tasmania's and Australia's biosecurity seriously. I will always have an open invitation for the minister to come to Tasmania. Tasmanian and Australian farmers deserve better.

While we are talking about country-of-origin labelling for food and imported food products, I would like to take some time to talk about a key priority for Tasmania's seafood industry. Tasmania is the largest producer of seafood by value in the nation and is a supplier of high-quality fresh and frozen seafood produce to both domestic and valuable export markets, principally in South-East Asia. The Tasmanian seafood industry comprises three primary sectors: wild catch, aquaculture and seafood processing. The key wild catch fisheries within Tasmania are abalone, commercial dive such as urchins, periwinkle, clams and seaweed, giant crab, rock lobster, scalefish and scallops. The key aquaculture sectors are farmed abalone, Atlantic salmon, ocean trout and shellfish—Pacific oysters and lovely mussels. Tasmania's seafood is nationally and internationally renowned as being of the highest quality. The latest data from the Tasmania Agri-food ScoreCard shows that the Tasmanian seafood industry is worth almost a billion dollars to the state economy. This report showed an increase in the value of the sector across both wild-capture fisheries and aquaculture. The industry value grew by 10.4 per cent, to a value of $0.9 billion dollars. Across all sectors, wild-caught and aquaculture, there has been an increase in the industry's value. A Tasmanian seafood industry workforce profile completed only last year by the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council states that the industry directly supports over 3,400 full-time equivalent positions. It is estimated that indirect seafood-related employment in Tasmania is in the vicinity of 17,000 people.

As you can see, the Tasmanian seafood industry is a rapidly growing high-value sector for the state and Australia, but the industry is quite-rightly concerned that a quality Tasmanian seafood product has to compete in restaurants, hotels and supermarkets alongside a cheaper imported product. I would also argue that this is a lower-quality product. We don't know, really, where it comes from, what food safety standards have been in place and whether it has been sustainably harvested. I acknowledge that Australia is a net importer of seafood and that there will always be a demand for an imported product, but surely the Tasmanian and Australian seafood industry should be able to give consumers the choice—so they know the country of origin of their seafood. Consumers do know that for fresh seafood with mandatory labelling laws in place, but they don't have that information for cooked or pre-prepared seafood. There is clearly strong consumer demand for this information. The Marine Stewardship Council 2016 annual report found that 69 per cent of Australian seafood consumers state they want to know that the fish they buy can be traced back to known and trusted sources. It's clear to the supply chain and the retailers that consumers want to know more about what they are buying.

To this end, I welcome the bipartisan work commenced last year by the former Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science to convene a working group to consider options for improving consumer access to seafood country-of-origin labelling. The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council is a very strong supporter of country-of-origin labelling for seafood in this process. It is a process I also supported, and I was pleased to be able to facilitate the Tasmanian industry being part of it. It is also worth noting that mandatory country-of-origin seafood labelling has been in effect in the Northern Territory since 2008. Information gathered in the 2017 Seafood origin working group paper states:

… under the NT licence system, consumers prefer local NT seafood over Australian seafood, which is in turn preferred over imports.

But that is not to say that, in our shops, restaurants and hotels, consumers should not be given the ability to make a choice; they should: a choice between a quality Tasmanian or Australian product or, if they choose, a lower-value imported product. To this end, I would like to call upon the new Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation, Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja, to support a trial in Tasmania of the mandatory labelling of seafood in the food services sector. Tasmania is the most ideal place for this trial.

Information gathered from a Tasmanian trial, along with that from the Northern Territory, would help to inform the debate on a national level. I recognise that there will be concerns from the food services sector but, at the end of the day, if Tasmania can demonstrate that mandatory labelling can be cost effective and at the same time achieve higher returns for our local industry and a social and economic benefit for my state, then, in my view, it is well worth doing. Equally, I have no doubt that Tasmanian consumers would be very strong supporters of this trial. As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has walked into the room—congratulations on your appointment—I, as I said before, formally invite the minister to Tasmania at any time to see the wonderful things we are doing not only in our seafood and aquaculture sector but also across our agricultural sector broadly.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 is another example of the government's commitment to best practice regulation as it strengthens Australia's world-class food safety management system whilst reducing the regulatory burden for compliant food importers. The bill modernises Australia's approach to food safety risks associated with imported food, adapting to changes in how food is traded around the globe whilst carefully balancing the risks associated with the food. Practical measures to strengthen the management of imported food safety risks being introduced in the bill will increase importers' accountability for food safety, increase importers sourcing safe food, improve monitoring and management of new and emerging food safety risks and improve incident response.

To address concerns for particular types of food where at-border testing alone is insufficient to assure safety, the bill will introduce a requirement for importers to have documentary evidence to demonstrate that effective food safety controls are in place throughout the supply chain to ensure food is safe for human consumption. Responsiveness to food safety incidents will be improved by allowing earlier intervention where there are reasonable grounds to believe that food may pose a serious risk to human health and that the food safety issue is unconfirmed or there is no reliable test that can be applied to detect the food safety hazard. To ensure a proportionate response, particular characteristics of a food can be targeted, avoiding unnecessary holding of unaffected foods.

The bill provides for the recognition of a foreign country's food safety regulatory system based on equivalence with Australia's food safety regulatory system. Food imported from a country assessed as having an equivalent food safety regulatory system to Australia's may be subject to reduced or minimal at-border food inspections, except where there is evidence of noncompliance or a food safety risk. This will reduce border intervention for food importers. Additionally, this ensures border intervention activities are not aimed unnecessarily at safe food. The bill provides a modern compliance framework with new and improved tools to enable more effective and efficient targeting of noncompliant food and importer behaviour. These tools also provide greater flexibility and more opportunity to encourage noncompliant food importers to become compliant. This is achieved through the introduction of a range of penalties that can be applied proportionately, consistently and based on the level of risk posed by the offence committed. New preventative control measures will be introduced to ensure that food is traceable and can be efficiently and effectively recalled during a food incident.

It is essential for Australia to meet domestic obligations to enable effective and efficient operation of the Australian food safety management system in its protection of human health. In addition, Australia is committed to promoting the global protection of human health and, as a signatory to international treaties, is obliged to share information with its international partners where a food poses a serious risk to human health. To support these obligations, the bill enables the appropriate use and disclosure of information consistent with these obligations. The bill removes confusing or outdated provisions and improves consistency across the statute book, making it easier for businesses and individuals to understand their obligations.

Overall, the bill will strengthen Australia's imported food safety management system, enabling Australians to continue to enjoy a wide range of high-quality and safe food from around the world; ensure Australian food manufacturers will be able to continue to source high-quality ingredients to produce world-class food, highly sought after both in Australia and around the world; and support Australia's role as a good global citizen by improving Australia's ability to work proactively with trading partners in ensuring the safety of food across the globe. I table a replacement explanatory memorandum.

I note the opposition's amendments but oppose them. Every level of government supports the hardworking men and women of Australia's farms and rural industries. Australia's total agricultural production is $63.4 billion, up 30 per cent from when we came into office. The value of agricultural exports is up 27 per cent since we came to office. We're investing in the future of agriculture by delivering on initiatives in the Agricultural competitiveness white paper to help make our farm enterprises stronger and more resilient. We're creating the environment for improved prices for farm commodities. Farmers are enjoying high prices for cattle, sheep and wool. Last year's winter grain crop was a bumper harvest and dairy prices are improving from last year's slump. We've recently signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, have delivered free trade agreements with three key Asian markets, China, Japan and Korea, and also signed the Peru FTA. These agreements will help open the door to export more produce around the world.

The coalition is delivering accelerated depreciation for fencing, water reticulation and fodder storage; a new country-of-origin food labelling system; $250 million a year for farm business concessional loans—more than $796 million of those loans have been approved for over 1,400 farmers; $180.5 million for Rural Research and Development for Profit; $30.8 million to break down technical barriers in trade; $25.8 million from 2015-16 to 2018-19 for pest and weed and animal control; improved certainty for farmers reliant on irrigation from a healthy and sustainable Murray-Darling system; oversight by having established the ACCC agricultural compliance and enforcement unit and appointed an Agriculture Commissioner; a strengthened Farm Management Deposits Scheme to help farmers put away money in good years; and $13.8 million for farm cooperatives in a collaboration pilot project.

By contrast, the Labor Party has no vision for agriculture and, when last in office, halved the agricultural budget. Agriculture industries have responded positively to the agreements government has achieved with Australia's major trading partners. This bill will strengthen the commitment that this government has made to agriculture moving forward.

Question negatived.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 16:0 1