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

The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 repeals and replaces the definition of 'national standard' in the Imported Food Control Act. The former Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources stated in his second reading speech that the bill was 'an important final step' in implementing country-of-origin labelling reforms. I think that is an overstatement and a dubious statement, I might say. This is a minor amendment that will ensure that authorised officers can continue to enforce country-of-origin labelling requirements for imported food products. At this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'd like to move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name. I move:

That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that a distracted Turnbull Government has failed to implement effective policies in a timely manner to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential'.

The House will recall that, some time ago, there was a shocking outbreak of hepatitis A, which at the time was attributed to frozen berries imported from China. As I understand it, that link was never actually established, which is unfortunate—not unfortunate that it wasn't associated with the berries but unfortunate that there wasn't any final determination about the source of that outbreak. But at the time, the minister of the day, the member for New England, rather than admit there had been a flaw in our system, decided to turn the debate away from the importation regime and the checks around that to a debate on country-of-origin labelling, which is how we found ourselves on this path. That is the country-of-origin labelling regime that we now have, which has been somewhat of a fizzer. The fact is that the imported berries that came into Australia back then were clearly marked 'product of China'. It wasn't in any way an issue relating to country-of-origin labelling.

But, since the introduction—with great fanfare—of the new fuel-gauge type country-of-origin labelling regime we now have in place, things have gone very, very quiet. I challenge members of the House to find anyone in their constituencies who is familiar with the new country-of-origin labelling regime or, in particular, whether they find it any more helpful or any more informative than the old regime. From my experience, members are highly unlikely to find any people who think that those changes have been in any way relevant. In fact, the labelling still doesn't tell you where the food has been imported from. On that basis, the fuss was about nothing more than distracting people's attention from the failings of this government in allowing an outbreak to occur in this country at that time.

I note that, despite all the rhetoric that comes from those opposite about agriculture and our food system, there is not one member of the coalition speaking on this bill. I made the point earlier when I was speaking on the appropriation bills that in that debate also there weren't any members of the coalition speaking on the coalition bills. Everyone who has been in this place for longer than five minutes knows that we all—or certainly the overwhelming majority of us—take the opportunity to speak on an appropriation bill because it is a bill on which you can speak about any matter you like. You cannot be called on relevance when speaking on an appropriation bill, because you can speak on any matter.

So it appears that those opposite have nothing to say about the government's performance and its budget and have nothing to say about matters in their electorates and have no concerns amongst their constituents that they want to raise in the appropriations debate. One can come to a number of conclusions. It might be that they are all too embarrassed to stand up and defend this government, which is a highly likely proposition given the embarrassing saga that we've seen play out over the last few weeks, and hardly an unlikely proposition given the enormous number of cuts and government decisions generally that have adversely impacted on so many sections of our community. So I think they are just running and have decided not to even try to defend this divided government any longer. The only other conclusion that you can come to is that they just have nothing to say about their electorates. Everything must be just fine and dandy in their electorates—but I suspect that that is not what their constituents are saying.

I find it even more amazing that not one member of the National Party nor any Liberal representing a regional seat is coming in here to talk about an important matter relating to agriculture. I've done them a favour; I've moved a second reading amendment, which will substantially broaden this debate. That second reading amendment talks about the failings of this distracted government to implement serious policy in the agriculture space. They have had four years or more now, and I can't think of one substantial initiative by this government which is ensuring that we make the very most of the enormous opportunities that lay before us in agriculture with the substantial increase in global food demand, including from the rising middle classes in the Asia region.

So I am giving members opposite, including the member for Calare, an opportunity to speak more broadly about their aspirations for agriculture, but, alas, it seems that they are not interested in talking about agriculture. They like talking about it at the despatch box, to make a political point. But, when we come in here offering a serious debate about the future of the agricultural sector, they are absolutely missing in action. I think it is almost without precedent for coalition members not to speak in the House on an agricultural bill. It is even more surprising on this day when the National Party has elected a new leader and Deputy Prime Minister who likes to crow on a regular basis about his commitment to agriculture—as do those who serve under him in the Nationals and the LNP, yet not one of them is in here to make a contribution to this debate. Well, let me make a bit of a broader contribution. Most of the points I have made in the past, but I want to build on them.

What we lack most in agriculture in this country from a government perspective is high-level government policy guidance and signals from government as to where they see agriculture going, what they see are the key opportunities and what they see as the key challenges and guidance which sends signals to investors as to where they believe the opportunities are in the future and where they as a government are prepared to offer the path of least resistance for investors. A government should be indicating its view about natural resource allocation, for example. We just don't have that from this government. After almost five years, we've had nothing on that front. We of course had the agriculture white paper, which, as we all know, just came to be treated as a joke—a cobbled together set of thought bubbles and boondoggles, a pork-barrelling exercise that never really amounted to anything. It certainly didn't provide high-level policy guidance from government so that people in agriculture knew where the government wanted the sector to go and where it might work with government to make the most of those opportunities.

The second thing we need to do is restore the COAG process. Sadly, one of the member for New England's first acts as the Minister for Agriculture was to abolish the Standing Council on Primary Industries, the COAG committee responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Commonwealth and the states. It's a constitutional fact that most of the management of land in this country is in the domain of the states. If the Commonwealth wants to play a full role in guiding us on a path to success in agriculture then the Commonwealth has to work very cooperatively with the states, and SCoPI was the vehicle for making sure we did so.

I had the honour of chairing SCoPI just once as the Commonwealth minister, and I was impressed by its resources, the public servants who worked behind it, the very well thought out policy agenda it had and the way the decisions of the previous SCoPI meeting were properly minuted and followed through at the next meeting, if more needed to be done. It was, of course, the committee responsible for the progression of drought policy in this country, but the member for New England just abolished it, and that was it; that was the end of state/Commonwealth cooperation. He did later establish the AGMIN committee, I think he called it, which didn't do much more than wine and dine on occasions. It hasn't met since last July, which is interesting in itself. SCoPI met on a regular basis, but not AGMIN. It doesn't have any real work agenda other than advice about where the next dinner might be, and I think we've seen in this place some of the costs involved in those dinners.

The third point is biosecurity. Biosecurity is a word that dares not leave the mouths of members opposite; they never speak about biosecurity. Biosecurity is probably the most important responsibility for an agriculture minister, because our real opportunities lie in the growth of food demand in Asia—the demand for high-quality, safe, clean green food. That is Australia's competitive advantage. God forbid we ever lose that competitive advantage. A lot of people think our competitive advantage lies in our geography and proximity to Asia. At some point that was true, and it's still somewhat of an advantage. But emerging countries in South America, for example, are on the march. Technological improvements in transport are bringing freight rates down considerably, and I think they can already compete with us in the South-East Asian market on freight. So biosecurity should, first and foremost, be a priority for every agriculture minister. If we lose our relatively disease-free status, it will be a huge blow to Australian agriculture.

We are seeing what's happening in Tasmania being played out now. The member for Lyons is with us this evening. Our members there are very concerned about the outbreak of fruit fly and its impact. Certainly it is having an impact already, but we are concerned about the enormous impact it could potentially have if it's not brought back under control. Not long before that we had the outbreak of white spot disease in the prawn sector in Queensland. We need to be across these things. It must be an absolute priority.

The fourth point is the need for the sector to adapt to a changing climate and to tackle drought. It's passing strange that it's the land sector that is probably the sector of our economy that is most adversely affected by climate change. Yet the former minister at least—we are yet to test the current minister; we shall see; I'm not particularly optimistic—made it an art form, made it a signature policy of his, to deny climate change, to pretend it doesn't exist and, therefore, to produce no government response whatsoever. That is backward-looking thinking. I hope that the new minister takes a different approach. There is a whole new generation of farmers coming through now who understand more than the generation before them what a significant impact this is going to have on the farming sector, and they will embrace and are embracing the need to change and the need to change dramatically.

On drought, again, the COAG committee was abolished. There was a consensus reached around 2012 that the drought architecture we had in place, the government policy in place, was not working. It was very costly and, in some cases, arguably, it even acted as a disincentive for farmers to build resilience and to drought-proof themselves. The exceptional circumstances arrangements were abolished. That proposition had the support of both the major political parties and the support of the National Farmers Federation. A new Farm Household Allowance support payment with a more liberal assets test was put in place to replace the old payment—there has always been a household support payment of some sort—but that was it. The idea was for the COAG committee, SCoPI, to progress that reform and develop new strategies for addressing drought. Since 2013, since this government was elected, not one extra mile has been progressed on drought policy.

The fifth point is the pursuit of a vigorous productivity agenda. You never hear anyone on the other side talk in this place about productivity in the farm sector. The member for Mallee is here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, because I know that he is a thinker on these questions. He is a farmer himself in an increasingly competitive global market. He knows the importance of being competitive and of productivity. But, gee, I would challenge him to show me a Hansard where he can demonstrate they did talk about it. The member for New England never spoke about it. I have never heard the member for New England talk about productivity in the farm sector. I have heard him talk about commodity prices, which he used to like to quote in this place on a regular basis—commodity prices over which he had absolutely no control, particularly in the red meat sector where prices were rising because of drought. It is a bit ironic, isn't it? He threw drought policy out the window but then claimed credit for beef prices rising on the back of drought. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. I don't know who the former minister thought he was talking to, because the people in the supermarkets weren't very happy about beef prices going up. All the cockies knew that beef prices were going up because of the drought. It still remains a complete mystery to me who the member for New England thought he was talking to when he was wrongly claiming credit for beef prices rising and other price rises in the red meat sector. You never heard him talk about dairy or any of the commodities which were in freefall. Apparently, the member for New England was fully responsible for all the price rises—and I can see the member for Mallee acknowledging my point—but took no responsibility for falling commodity prices. It is a magic thing that. It is amazing what you can get away with at the dispatch box when the opposition has no proper mechanism for responding.

We have to have a vigorous productivity agenda. We can't sit back and say that our clean, green image is enough to get us there, or our proximity to Asian markets is enough to get us there. As other countries emerge, in South America again, in particular, we will increasingly face competition, and our productivity needs to do much better. It has been flatlining for all too long, and it should have been a key focus for the now former minister and it should be a key focus for the incoming minister, and I hope he gives it some attention.

The sixth point is the embrace of more efficient and more sustainable land use practice. This, of course, goes to productivity and the points I was making about a changing climate. Governments will have a role and should have a role in incentivising and encouraging a greater and more rapid take-up of best land use practices. It's a bit of a fallacy or myth in this country that we have an abundance of soil and water resources. We simply do not. Decades upon decades of European farming practices and the overuse of pesticides and fertilisers have degraded our soils. Practices are shredding our waterways. We're having a big debate about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan now. We need to ensure that farmers everywhere—producers growers, horticulturalists and the like—are embracing the very best management practices so that we are feeding our soils and using our water efficiently to make sure that we preserve them and get the best use out of them.

The seventh point is further development of market mechanisms to maximise the efficient allocation of those natural resources. Again, we have limited natural resources in this country. We want to make sure those resources are used where they produce the highest possible return both for the producer and also for the country. If I can just go back the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, people see it as first and foremost an environmental plan. It certainly is that. It's a plan to restore the health of the river and to make sure that our farmers have the irrigation water they need for many, many decades, if not hundreds of years, into the future. That is a critical point. But when you think about it, it's also a market mechanism which ensures that the price of water determines where that water is consumed. Already we see a shift in the use of those water resources into higher value products and away from lower value products. That is a very good thing.

It's time we turned our minds to our soils as well and how we might ensure they're better allocated. Carbon is the key to that attempt. We should be talking seriously in this place about how we might make that happen to ensure that farmers can benefit, both in the financial sense immediately and also in the longer term as we ensure that we preserve and rejuvenate our soil resources. I challenge anyone to show me when the member for New England ever spoke about the quality of our soils. I know the soil advocate, General Michael Jeffery, is very frustrated with the lack of attention he gets from government for the very good work that he's doing in trying to raise awareness of the importance of our soils. I love the saying, 'We can improve our soils quicker than we can build dams.' We can dramatically improve the capacity of our soils to retain moisture. That would be a good, positive thing to the agriculture sector in this country.

The eighth point is to encourage the pursuit of higher value products and markets. Australia has a history of being a producer of commodities. We have very heavy emphasis on commodities. We will always have an emphasis on commodities. The market will determine these things. But our future is not absolutely in growing more and more commodities from the same limited natural resources and getting them into world markets where we're price takers. We need to see a steady and slow shift up the value curve into products where we can secure higher margins on our products and therefore higher returns on the allocation of those natural resources.

The ninth point is to increase our efforts to reduce non-tariff barriers in export markets. This is really important. Ministers stand at the dispatch box on a daily basis telling the farming community that the world is now their oyster, everything is fixed and everything will be fine because we've now signed three recent free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China. We are working on Indonesia, but I'm wondering what's happened to that. We haven't heard too much about that of late. And there is Peru, of course. These are all good things. Levelling the playing field in terms of tariff barriers makes us more competitive than we were before, but we still need to compete. This takes me back to all the points I've already made. However, we don't get access until we deal with the non-tariff barriers.

In horticulture in particular there is very little access into Korea, Japan and China as we speak. Why? Because the protocols have not been established. So the tariffs are down in many instances but that means nothing if the health and other protocols haven't been finalised and, therefore, the importer will not allow those products into their country. This process has been all too slow. I've never heard a minister on that side acknowledge that. I have never heard it acknowledged. They tell us they are doing a great job and making great progress, but every industry leadership group I speak to tells me just the opposite. They are very frustrated that, despite all the hype about the completion of these free trade deals, the real work at the coalface in getting access has not been done and/or is being done too slowly.

The 10th point was a lift in our research innovation and extension efforts. Nothing could be more critical. If we're going to compete in the future in an increasingly competitive market, our embracing of new innovation has to be world's best and has to be an urgent priority for us. We readily claim to have the best model in the world—the co-funded model. That is what we've been operating under. We like to say that it's the best model in the world, because Labor invented it, constructed it and implemented it. But, almost 30 years on, it's probably time for another look to ensure that we're spending the limited resources as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can because we don't have a dollar to waste.

On extension, of course the state governments have withdrawn from the field and nothing has filled that vacuum. There is a role—again for the COAG process—which doesn't exist at the moment for the Commonwealth to address those important issues, to bring the states together and to start working cooperatively with them to make sure that we get the fruits of our research and innovation down onto the farm. If we don't do that, we will fail. Again, in the last five years or so, this government has not given sufficient urgency to that question.

My first point was one of policy guidance. This government has been doing just the opposite. We are desperate for investment in agriculture. The member for Hume was the key author of a report known as Greener pastures, which suggested that we need something like $600 billion of investment I think up to 2030 or 2050. It's a big number. As a country with a small population and limited savings, by definition, as has always been the case, we will be critically dependent on foreign investment. Yet, instead of giving guidance and attracting investment to this country, this government has been sending the opposite signals. It's been putting up the we-are-not-open-for-business sign, at least to certain countries.

For the first time now in our history we've got a discriminatory foreign-investment-review-screening regime. If you are from the United States, you get screened at $1 billion of investment. But, if you're from Asia, you'll get screened, for ag land at least, at $15 million. What sort of signal does that send to potential investors in Australia? We should remember that it's a highly competitive market for global capital out there. People tell me every day that they are turning away. They are saying that Australia is all too hard and the sovereign risk is all too great.

Only a few weeks ago the Treasurer decided that he'd have another thought bubble and play to the crowd as the government sunk further into the mud of its own disarray and division. He said he'd make sure that people would advertise domestically if they're selling agricultural land. I would have thought that a seller of land would market that land wherever he or she thought they could secure the best return. I think in the future that's what they'll continue to do. Now companies and individual owners are going to have to spend big money advertising in markets in Australia where they know there is no prospect. They know the market; they know who the buyers are. They don't have to advertise. If they think there is a domestic buyer who is going to pay them more money, they'll go to the domestic buyer. If they think an international buyer is going to give them more money, they'll go to the international buyer. They are now forced to advertise—and it's very expensive to advertise in Australian newspapers at the national level—just to satisfy the political needs of the government. This is an outrageous proposition.

But there is another point there. The former minister was very fond of saying that our super funds wouldn't invest in agriculture. He was fond of saying it, but in four years he never did anything about it. But there's a key point here: Australian super funds are nervous about this crackdown on foreign investment because they want their investments to be liquid. They want to be able to move them when they want to, and the crackdown from this Treasurer, in partnership with the then minister, is making it harder and harder. I'm not making this up; I've spoken to the Australian industry funds. They are saying, 'Investment in agriculture's getting too hard for us.' It's all too hard. The risk is too great because the foreign investors are running away. They're giving up on Australia and, of course, that impacts on the market, and that, in turn, impacts on the views of those who are managing the funds of hardworking Australians.

This has a hugely detrimental effect on the agriculture sector, and I appeal to the Treasurer to have another think. We've had a bipartisan approach to foreign investment in this country generally, including in agriculture, for as long as I can remember. If I were to go back to 'Black Jack' McEwen, the member for Mallee might be able to tell me different about those days, but we've had a bipartisan approach. The Treasurer did a great disservice to the agriculture sector when he broke from that bipartisan approach, so I appeal to the Treasurer and the new minister to have a rethink. I've extended the hand of bipartisanship, as I did with the member for New England. He rejected it. He only wanted to play politics. He wanted to divide the community and back the side that played to his base. The new minister and his new leader have an opportunity to do it differently. We stand ready to work with them on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our agriculture sector meets its aspirations into the future.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Hunter is almost in mourning at having lost his old sparring partner, the member for New England. It's a whole new world out there.

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

Plenty of material with the new one!

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he'll have to work away. I enjoyed listening to his speech and the summary of his bipartisanship. We'll take that up over a drink later, member for Hunter, but it is a new world. You've got a new young buck to keep in line, so I look forward to watching that happen.

The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is part of the final leg of the journey of ensuring that Australians know where their food comes from. My involvement with this started way back on a tractor drive which began in Tasmania. They drove tractors to Canberra to try to highlight to the Australian people that it shouldn't be too much to ask that when Aussies walk into a supermarket they are able to see where their food is produced—is it produced in Australia or is it produced in another country? I think that's fair and reasonable, and there are a lot of Australians who really do want to know the answer to that question.

It is estimated that 87 per cent of Australians now live within 50 kilometres of the coast. People like to project the bushie as being the great image of Australian culture, but that is actually not the case. Whether we like it or not, we are a very urbanised people. I lament that we are so urbanised, because that's done two things. Firstly, it has meant that there are fewer people living in regional Australia, which means members of parliament such as me have an electorate that covers a third of the state—and after the next redistribution that will probably go to about 40 per cent of the state—whereas the member for La Trobe has got a beautiful part of the world but it's only a small part of the world. I've got a big part of the world. Becoming more urbanised has meant that people live closer together. They have a more congested lifestyle, and I think that congested lifestyle does wear on people. Secondly, they're disconnected from their food somewhat. But I think the average Aussie still does want to know where their food comes from. They want to know, and they've got an innate gut feeling that Australian grown food actually is better for them—and it is good for them.

Having been in agricultural production from 18, when I finished year 12, to 38—20 years of my life—I've seen the caveats we put around withholding periods if we use chemicals; I've seen the way that withholding periods are honoured, maintained and signed off with legal vigour; I've seen the importance of this when you deliver grain to a silo; and I've seen the way we treat our livestock, with a great deal of care. I can say with a lot of confidence that, if you buy Australian food, because of the regulatory regime and because of the people who produce that food, it is good for you. It is not only good for you but also good for your children. If you talk to mothers who are shopping, you find that one of the things they are very mindful of is good nutrition for their children. If you compare that situation with the melamine scare with powdered infant milk in China a few years ago, where, sadly, some Chinese babies died as a result, you can see why a strong regime of regulation and good farming practice ultimately is not only good for you but also good for your children.

Further, knowing where your food comes from and buying Australian grown food is good for your job. If you buy something that is produced locally, that money spins through the economy. A guy said to me once that there is an inequity here when you think about a worker on an Australian farm who works in good occupational health and safety conditions, who gets paid superannuation and who works normal hours. There is no child slave labour. The standards that we take for granted in a modern Australian workplace are not always the same as the standards we see in many parts of the world. I hark back to seeing people in developing countries who were spraying endosulphan, often using backpacks. I've used this chemical on my farm in the past—we don't use it anymore—and we had to use full respirators, the whole deal. These people were spraying cotton with endosulphan. This is long before GM cotton came in. The life expectancy of those people was 30. So buying Australian food is not only good for your health and your children's health but also good for your job—it keeps the money local—and good for your community.

There is nothing better than going to a farmers market and seeing something that is produced locally and in season. I fear that's one of the things that we've lost in our culture a little bit. We see food as fuel rather than as the blessing that it is. People buy tomatoes and wonder why they don't always taste good. There's a season for tomatoes. There's a season for table grapes. I have to tell you that now is actually the season for table grapes. If I can put in a plug: right across my patch they are picking table grapes. If you go to the supermarket you'll see grapes there. They are produced in my patch and they are getting picked now. So looking for country-of-origin labelling also gives you an understanding of what's in season. Buy fruit that is in season. If you want to eat good, wholesome flavoured fruit, buy the stuff that's in season. Buy apples when it's apple season, buy citrus when it's citrus season and buy grapes when it's grape season, and you will ultimately get the best of things.

We have a unique agricultural landscape that many people don't fully appreciate. The fact that we've got a climate that goes from the northern tropics all the way through to Tasmania gives us a variety of fruit that can't be grown in many other parts of the world. If you think about what's produced in my patch, almonds, you have to have a certain number of heat units and a certain amount of water to produce almonds—and to produce olives. We don't often stop to think about the fact that we've got Tasmania at the bottom and the tropics in the north. People might not know this, but all the grain grown around the world is grown on the 32nd parallel. If you look at where the wheat belts are across the world, they are the 32nd parallel down from the equator in the Southern Hemisphere and the 32nd parallel up from the north of the equator. You can't produce everything everywhere. We're very pleased that we can do this because of the diversity and the great landscape that we have.

So buying Australian food is good for you, good for your children, good for local jobs and good for your community—that sense of community that comes from buying food—and it also saves on travel. If you think about it, when you're buying food from the other side of the world, it's had to travel a heck of a long way, it's had to be stored and it's not going to be anywhere near as good, or taste as good, as something that's grown very locally.

It's also good for the environment. I want to hark back to a story I once saw when I was in Nanjing in China. I was at a wool-scouring plant. For those of you who haven't had much experience in the wool industry, that's how I saved the deposit for my farm. It's pretty hard physical work but a good way to make you pretty buff and look good for the girls when you're young. You toughen up when you're doing real physical work. But I have to say wool has quite a lot of lanolin in it. It's quite interesting stuff to scour. I was in Nanjing, and they were scouring wool there. Of course, all the scum coming out of the wool was going straight into the Yangtze River, and I said to the guy at the wool-scouring plant, which was scouring 14 per cent of the world's wool, 'Are you concerned about your environmental management?' He said: 'No, sir. I have certificate on wall says "very good environmental manager". Certificate on wall—no problem.' That was their answer as far as good environmental management is concerned. Can I say that, if you are buying Australian-grown food, it has been produced to standards that are First World—standards that actually look after the environment. So don't buy Australian-grown food just because it's good for you; also buy it because it's good for your children. Buy it because it's good for you having a job and your children having a job. Buy it because it's good for your sense of community and understanding how food is produced, and also buy it because it is good for the environment.

I have to say this is something that's been very dear to my heart. I was one of the directors on the board of Australian Made, Australian Grown, and I'm really pleased to see that, in the discussions around promoting Australian Made, Australian Grown, we have maintained the little green triangle with the kangaroo on it. I have to tell you there's a reason why I support that as a brand. One reason is that it has a 25-year history. It quietened down for a while, and under the prime ministership of John Howard he pulled together a board to really fire that up, and I was one of those board members, as well as some very good, upstanding citizens. That board was all voluntary, and it's gone from strength to strength.

Also, people are time poor. When they go into the supermarket, they want to get in and get out. They want to be able to see what the product is. They haven't got time to read every little thing. But now, as a result of this government and this initiative, people can walk into a supermarket, and they can pick up and very clearly see the green triangle with the kangaroo—clearly Australian. They can also see the bar chart which can tell you if it's half made in Australia, three-quarters made in Australia or fully Australian—which, of course, makes it open for things such as muesli producers and mixed biscuits, where you sometimes do have to bring in some imported food. So it makes it very clear. People are time poor, and it's also very quick for them.

There's another thing that I found when I was a board director of Australian Made, Australian Grown: there is a perception of our product that is very strongly held, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The things that we take for granted as food safety they cherish. When I was on the board, what I found was that a third of the companies that were using the Australian Made, Australian Grown logo weren't just using it to appeal to the patriotic nature of Australians; they were also using it as a marketing tool in the Asia-Pacific. There's nothing better than the kangaroo. There's nothing more Australian than the kangaroo—so much so that there was a company, AH Beard, that was making beds, and effectively it was selling beds to China. You would think that would be like selling ice to Eskimos, but here was an Australian company selling beds to China. We saw this all the way. So I want to say good labelling not only benefits Australian consumers and our economy domestically but has actually helped our economy in the export sense.

I listened to the member for Hunter talk a while ago about the productivity of Australian farmers, and I have to say the great thing farmers say to me is, 'Get out of our way, get out of our pockets and let us have a go.' That's what we've tried to do. Since I've been a member of this parliament we've signed up to free trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan. We've now signed up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are things about getting out of the way—making it easier to get their products to the market. We've invested in the roads and rail infrastructure to help them get their product to port, and we've stood by them and said at no case are we ever going to shut down your industry. I give that in contrast to the terrible shutdown of the live cattle industry that had almost diabolical effects on Northern Australia. It was done, basically, because of a populist email campaign. The member for Hunter was talking a lot about the agriculture industry. I think gladly that he was there in those days and he's learned from that. I hope and pray that the Australian agricultural industry continues to grow. I hope and pray that it continues to become such a key pillar of our economy, and I'm so confident about the industry because of the confidence, the innovation and the productivity of the people I see. It does show that good government policy ultimately translates to good outcomes. Good government policy such as country-of-origin labelling, developing export markets, accelerated depreciation, and investing in roads and rail infrastructure to get their products to port. But bad government policy that removes confidence in their markets, that removes confidence in their employment arrangements, that removes confidence in their water will have diabolical effects on our agricultural industries. Do not trust these guys yet, I say to Australian farmers. Trust us. We are the ones that are delivering it. You can see it in your commodity prices and in the confidence. Everywhere I go across rural Australia they are expanding and walking tall. This doesn't just happen; it is the result of the policies such as the one we are talking about here today that the government introduces. No-one else in Australia understands how to stand by farmers like the coalition which I'm proud to be part of. That government is delivering for them.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Mallee for his dedication to his region. He gave it a nice few advertisements along the way there. Well done. Of course I disagree with him when he said the coalition is best for farmers. We know that's not true. Look at the government benches and look at the speaking list on this bill. They've managed to get one government member—

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two!

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two, I'm being told. It's the member for Swan in the great regional and rural seat of Swan, which I think, from memory, is inner-city East Victoria Park. That's what they've managed to do. Where are the members for New England, Gippsland, Dawson, Parkes, Murray, Calare, Lyne, Cowper, Page, Capricornia, Maranoa, Riverina. I'll give the member for Riverina his due: He may be a bit distracted at the moment. Where are the members for Wide Bay, Flynn, Hinkler? That's just the National Party MPs. What about all those regional Liberals who claim to represent country Australia? Where are they on this bill, which is all about improving regional Australia and agriculture?

Once again the Nationals have been shown to be pretenders when it comes to regional Australia. The Nationals and Liberals who represent regional electorates will vote for corporate tax cuts and measures that make it harder for country kids to go to uni and more expensive for country people to go to a doctor, but they're hardly anywhere to be seen when it comes to speaking in support of a bill that serves to strengthen country-of-origin labelling.

I must briefly come back to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who has not taken an opportunity to have any input into this debate. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources today was asked a question in support of farming families. What is he going to do? Where does he stand on the issue of farming families who are being preyed upon by payday lenders? What was his response? Not, 'I will support families.' His response was all about profit and loss and how hard it was for business to have a go in this country. What an extraordinary contribution from a minister for agriculture who purports to represent regional Australia and regional families, speaking not in defence of regional families but in defence of payday lenders and those who prey upon vulnerable families. Labor is supporting this bill, but it is important to remind Australians that this government has been asleep at the wheel and clearly distracted from acting in the best interests of farmers and regional communities like mine. That is why I support the member for Hunter's amendment.

Tasmania's economy depends heavily on agriculture. It contributes $1.5 billion a year to our state economy. That's slated to reach $10 billion a year in around 30 years as new ventures come online and existing farmers ramp up production. As much as those opposite—like the member for Mallee—like to parrot the fiction that they are the parties that look after people on the land, it is a lie that has been exposed in recent months. It is Labor that has been a big part of Tasmania's agricultural success story. It was Labor that initiated Tasmania's agricultural irrigation schemes, which now transform once marginal paddocks into highly productive farms. It was Labor that invested billions in improving our state's highways to ensure that product could reach market quicker and fresher. What has this government done about improving the highways of Tasmania so that agricultural produce can get to market? Nothing. There was nothing in last year's so-called infrastructure budget for the infrastructure of Tasmania.

And it was Labor that protected Tasmania from biosecurity threats. It wasn't Labor who cut biosecurity funding; that was the Liberals both here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania. It was this government in Canberra, the former agriculture minister, the member for New England, who abolished the position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity—unbelievable! With biosecurity at the forefront of what Australian producers and importers care about, the former agriculture minister abolished the office of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. Of course, after Labor forcefully pointed out the error of his ways, he reluctantly reinstated the office, but not with the same powers that existed under Labor.

It was Liberal governments here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania that watched and did nothing as rust infected our blueberries and fruit fly invaded our island. As a result, our fruit producers have had to throw away valuable produce and they've been shut out of lucrative markets, and it could take them years to regain access. And what's been the Tasmanian Liberal government's response? Control zones guarded by wheelie bins. What a joke! The cafe manager from Christmas Hills Raspberry Farm in my electorate says that she has been dealing with confused customers since the fruit fly outbreak started. The raspberry farm is outside the control zone, but many people—many of them tourists from interstate and overseas—are unsure about what they can and cannot do. Unbelievable, it is cafe staff, not biosecurity officers, who have been informing visitors about their obligations and helping them dispose of fruit properly. Farmers and retailers have been left to mop up the mess that the Liberals have created with their cuts to biosecurity. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Like the farmers in the regional communities that we represent, Labor is aghast at the monumental biosecurity failures that have occurred under the Liberals—failures that occurred after cuts were made to biosecurity resources by Liberal governments in Canberra and Tasmania. Labor warned about the risks when the cuts were first proposed and made, but we were ignored. In 2015 a Senate inquiry into biosecurity, chaired by Tasmanian senator Anne Urquhart, cautioned the government that its cuts to staffing, resources and innovation would affect our nation's ability to continue to export and import successfully. But the Liberals and Nationals have never been short on arrogance and a 'we know all' attitude. The warnings were ignored, and now it is Labor that must fix the problem that the Liberals have created.

On Saturday, Tasmanians get the chance to vote for a Labor government in Tasmania, led by Rebecca White, who grew up on a farm and understands the importance of agriculture to our state. Rebecca White is pledging $3.7 million to address biosecurity gaps. I am pleased to tell the House that federal Labor, following representations from the members for Braddon and Bass and me, will, if we are elected to government, contribute $2 million to recruit an additional 20 biosecurity officers for Tasmania, helping to address the gap that has been left by cuts by the Liberal government. That's real action to be delivered by a Rebecca White Labor government to fix the biosecurity mess that the Liberals have created.

I can't overstate how important Tasmania's agricultural reputation is to my state's economic future. We are known the world over for clean, green produce. If fruit, vegetables, nuts, spirits, seafood, beer or dairy comes from Tasmania, you know it's among the best in the world. That is one of the reasons I am so passionate about our biosecurity and it is also why I support not just stringent country of origin labelling but region of origin labelling. Just as we can no longer call Australian sparkling wine champagne, no-one should be able to claim that something is Tasmanian if it is not. Last year, I addressed the issue of a mainland gin operation marketing itself as a Tasmanian product on the basis that it used a tiny little sprinkling of Tasmanian saffron in its drink. While less than impressed with the lukewarm response that I received from the ACCC, which arrived to me many weeks after my complaint, I do acknowledge that if we want tougher laws against charlatans who seek to piggyback on the hard work of Tasmanian producers it is up to us in this place and in the state jurisdictions to enact tougher labelling laws.

And I note that Tasmanian Labor will, if elected on Saturday, commit $500,000 to improve the professional marketing of Brand Tasmania to international and Australian markets. It is not quite region of origin labelling but it is a start. Better labelling of the origin of food is a no-brainer, for so many reasons, and it is something that consumers demand. Choice did a survey back in mid-2015 that found 80 per cent of respondents wanted to know where their food was from because they want to purchase food grown or made in Australia. Eighty per cent said it was crucial to their purchasing that they could clearly see that something was made here and what proportion of the product was made here. Two-thirds of consumers who were surveyed felt strongly about supporting Australian made and buying Australian to support Aussie farmers.

My Tasmanian colleague the member for Braddon, in her contribution to this legislation, has called for Tasmania to be a trial site for country of origin labelling for seafood. Fresh and frozen seafood sold in retail outlets such as the supermarket or the fishmonger—if there are any left—already requires country of origin labelling. But cooked seafood, such as the fish that is prepared in a restaurant or a fish and chip shop, is currently exempt. The member for Braddon is proposing, as am I, that it is time to fix this anomaly. There is no reason why country of origin and, preferably, region of origin should not appear on menus to give consumers more information about what they are buying.

The Tasmanian seafood industry is fully on board, with a trial based in our state, and it would bring us into line with the Northern Territory, with its mandated country of origin labelling for all seafood products. Having come from an island state, with considerable sadness I can tell the House that, incredibly, 70 per cent of all seafood consumed in Australia comes from overseas. What a tragedy it is to be an island nation surrounded by waters with some of the best fisheries in the world that has not had the sense to better support a stronger domestic commercial fishery. But I am pleased to say that the Buy Australian movement is getting stronger. The marketplace is demanding increased transparency in production methods and places, and that is something we should all support.

Consumers are getting savvier. They want to know more about the food they buy—how it's grown, what's in it and whether it's sustainable. Tasmania is well placed to benefit from this greater emphasis on food quality. That is the sort of quality you get from Tasmanian Truffles, which is run these days by brother and sister Henry and Anna Terry near Deloraine in my electorate. Henry and Anna are familiar faces to many who watch the program My Kitchen Rules. They have wowed the judges with their creations. But when they are not cooking up a storm on TV they are managing the family farm outside Deloraine, with faithful sidekick Doug the labrador, and adding value to their amazing product.

Tasmanian produce received accolades recently from none other than Nigella Lawson, who just conducted a food tour across our state. She was in raptures, telling her 2.6 million Twitter followers that the homegrown potatoes cooked in crushed salt that she ate in Launceston were 'just splendiferous'. Last year Alain Passard from France, Dominique Crenn from the USA and Christian Puglisi from Italy took part in the 'Great Chef Series' in Launceston and Hobart, focusing on unique products and local wineries, and farmers were invited to spend time with the chefs to develop a menu unique to their region. There's the Agrarian Kitchen in the south of my electorate. There's Redlands Distillery in Kempton. There are so many stories of so many places doing wonderful things with food.

We are committed to retaining quality in Tasmania. This is one of the reasons we are so strongly committed in Tasmania to retaining Tasmania's status as being free of genetically modified food. Let me be clear: I'm not against the science of GM food. There's a place in the global market for GM and its benefits for greater yields and resistance to pests and disease. But Tasmania and Tasmanian farmers are best served by offering a premium product to markets willing to pay more for food unadulterated by GM. If we allow GM into Tasmania, there will be no going back. Tasmanian farmers will no longer be competing in premium price markets but against the big producers that sell on volume.

A small state like Tasmania, with its myriad of small and medium producers who produce quality food, cannot compete in the volume space. We will end up being price takers not price setters. Keeping Tasmania GM free is something that Tasmanian Labor members will fight hard for, even if it does put us offside with some in this place who think GM should be embraced nationwide with no holds barred. On that note, I'd like to say Labor is happy to support the government' bill, but the government should be held to account for its manifest failures in agricultural policy. That's why I support the member for Hunter's amendment to the bill.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. I acknowledge the fact that the member for Lyons said mine wasn't a country seat, but we do have consumers and food importers in my electorate and plenty of people interested in food labelling. It's not just the country regions that are interested in it; there are many of us city slickers who are also keen to understand where our food comes from. It's the Australian way, because we're such a multicultural society, to ask a bloke walking down the street or someone you've met somewhere: 'What's your origin?' I guess it's for the same reason that we want to know what food we're eating and what its origin is as well.

I want to talk about the previous member's claim that Labor is the party for the regions. I'll remind him of the Gunns woodchip factory that was shut down in Tasmania and the impact that Labor also had on live exports, shutting them down overnight. That was very friendly to farmers! Deputy Speaker Hastie, I know you're a strong supporter of regional areas and agricultural business. I know that the fruit in Canning—Carmel, Karragullen and Pickering Brook—is exceptional this year and is not only going to be consumed in Australia but probably exported, so you should be proud of the people who produce in your electorate as well.

As I said, while I'm a metropolitan member, the measures contained in this bill are important to many of my constituents for two reasons: it either affects their grocery shop as they seek to buy Australian products, or it may mean a few changes for their businesses. All of the constituents who have contacted my office have been very supportive of any change that allows for an easier and clearer way to distinguish Australian products, as many of them want to ensure they support our farmers and regional Australians. And as the member for Lyons leaves the chamber, I'd like to ask that he carry his campaign for the labelling of food on restaurant menus upstairs to the dining room here as well. It's would be nice to know what we're eating off the buffet. I'll expect a result from him next sitting!

Last year, the federal member for Cowper, in his role as assistant minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, joined me to visit a local grocer in Como to talk about the incoming changes relating to country-of-origin labelling. The local grocer in Como is the IGA that is located on Preston Street. Pierre runs this local grocery and consistently champions fresh local produce. After coming to Australia with his family, he's continued to run a very successful local business and is determined to support local Aussie produce. Pierre's supermarket is located right in the heart of the suburb of Como, hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away from where much of our Aussie produce is coming from. Pierre is a strong supporter of our government's changes to the country-of-origin labelling, working with many of the suppliers to ensure they are up to date with recent changes. It's a wonderful supermarket, and Pierre has taken steps to ensure that a large amount of the produce he stocks now follows the new country-of-origin labelling. The community has responded very positively to these changes, and Pierre noted that he has had new customers visiting the store instead of going to the bigger supermarkets. Instead, they prefer to visit his family owned business and support Aussie produce and Aussie business.

During our visit, Assistant Minister Hartsuyker and I had many members of the community speak to us about the clarity and ease these reforms have created in ensuring they can support Aussie produce. We were even approached by a local business owner who is eager to go on the front foot with these reforms in his own business. He was an importer of food, and we gave him relevant links and information. The visit was well received, and I'd like to thank Pierre for allowing us to speak to his customers about the reforms that this government has undertaken, and to visit his shop, which, I must add, is always well presented with massive amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables in colour order. I thank the minister for visiting and working to ensure that these reforms are well implemented.

This bill seeks to reform the country-of-origin labelling for food in Australia to ensure the country-of-origin labelling is enforced in Australia so consumers know whether their products are truly Australian made or just imported. These reforms to our country-of-origin labelling were introduced by the Turnbull government in 2016, to be fully implemented on 1 July this year. This bill is required as country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the current arrangements in the Imported Food Control Act 1992. Under these reforms, country-of-origin labelling for food will be regulated under a new compulsory information standard under Australian Consumer Law, rather than the current arrangement that is through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. There is minimal impact on food imported into Australia with these changes.

Food importers can access the requirements for country-of-origin labelling in the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which is a result of extensive consumer research and a comprehensive regulation impact statement, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis informed by the consultation. Ian Macfarlane, the former member for Groom, was heavily involved in this at the outset when the consultation was taking place.

Country-of-origin labelling will still be required on imported products, for example 'Product of Thailand' or 'Made in Canada', and would need to meet the new rules around 'made in' and 'packed in' claims that result from these changes. For priority foods, importers are required to make their country-of-origin claim in a box on the label, so it can be easily found by consumers. Under these changes, food importers are not allowed to use the kangaroo symbol, as their product is not of Australian origin. If businesses want to indicate the presence of Australian ingredients in an imported food, they can use a label that also includes a bar chart and text about the proportion of Australian ingredients.

This bill is required as the current arrangement with the country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the current legislation when the requirements are taken out of the Food Standards Code at the start of July this year. This bill will ensure that the new country-of origin-requirements under the new Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 can be enforced under the Imported Food Control Act 1992. This means that authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can maintain legislative authority to enforce country-of-origin labelling for imported food at the first entry point in our country, our borders.

While this legislation will alter the legislative framework, it will have no practical effect on food importers, consumers, or the regulatory environment—it is to ensure that this framework exists to allow enforceability by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The role of government is to ensure that regulatory regimes are not oppressive and are conducive to supporting our businesses. This government supports this notion, and, as such, this legislation has resulted from significant consumer and stakeholder consultation to ensure the reforms are effective and avoid implementing unnecessary regulation in the sector.

The reforms were also given to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in the preparation of this proposed legislation. I can assure food importers in my electorate of Swan and those across the nation that there will be no additional costs borne by them as a result of this bill passing. This consultation included our overseas trading partners. In 2016 the federal government notified our trading partners of our intention to reform the country-of-origin labelling. This consultation included referring trading partners to the new requirements in the new country-of-origin food labelling standard that this government introduced in 2016. With further amendments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 due to the introduction of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017, we further notified our trading partners in March of last year. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science has also developed a fact sheet on these changes for our trading partners. It is now available on its website to ensure that these changes are well known.

With this bill the enforcement actions that exist under the Imported Food Control Act 1992 can be taken for imported food that does not meet the requirements set out in the new Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016. This is not dissimilar to the ways that other standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are applied now. It gives authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources the powers to hold, re-export or destroy products that do not comply with the applicable standards for that food as a result of inspections carried out under the act. In addition to these enforcement actions, subsequent imports of the same food are inspected for compliance with the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 until a history of compliance is demonstrated.

As a result of this bill the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will hold legislated authority for enforcing country-of-origin food labelling for imported food products at the border. In Australia, compliance with the standard will be the responsibility of the Australian Consumer Law regulators. The regulators on the list include the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, as well as state and territory consumer protection agencies. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will also have legislative authority to ensure the changes to country-of-origin food labelling for imported food under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905. The Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 applies to all imported food, including food imported from New Zealand. The Imported Food Control Act 1992 does not apply to food imported from New Zealand under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement of 1997.

Food importers in my electorate have contacted my office to voice their support for these changes, but have been curious on how they have access to the information about our government's reforms. The amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 make it clear to importers that they are required to comply with the requirements in the new standards. The text of the bill also includes a note that this information standard is made under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which is commonly referred to as the Australian Consumer Law. Food importers can access the new country-of-origin labelling information standard on the Federal Register of Legislation as well is obtaining guidance about the information standard from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website.

This legislation is not out of the ordinary in the global marketplace now. Most countries mandate some form of country of origin labelling; however, the specific labelling requirements and what imported foods they apply to differ from country to country. This is even the case for many of our biggest trading partners. Under the international food labelling standard, the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, a country-of-origin statement must be provided on food where consumers would be misled or deceived if they did not have this origin information.

The government's reforms address longstanding consumer confusion and frustration about country-of-origin claims on food products. These reforms will give consumers clearer and more meaningful origin information, allowing them to support their buying preferences. The reforms have been developed with extensive consumer and business consultation. A comprehensive regulation impact statement, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis informed by consultation, underpinned the state and Territory governments' agreement to the changes. This government in 2015 appointed a highly renowned market research agency to take extensive consumer research on the government's proposals. The findings included that almost three-quarters of people, 74 per cent, thought it was important or very important to be able to identify the country of origin of food. This information is far too significant to ignore. It is time to ensure that our labelling standards are improved.

As with many reforms, there will be a review at the end of the transition period, which is two years from now, in 2020-21. The review will cover the scope of the reforms and their effectiveness in meeting their objectives in relation to the community and industry expectations.

This bill is a very simple legislative change and ensures enforcement of these recent changes in relation to country-of-origin labelling, which are sensible reforms that ensure clarity and ease, remove confusion for consumers, and make clear to food importers the expectations of our labelling structure. I'm proud to be a part of this government, a government that has consistently ensured sensible reforms to many of our regulatory reforms in such environments not only to bring them in line with community expectations, as seen through the consultation process, but also to ensure that government regulation is not imposing red tape for the sake of red tape. I see the former minister for deregulation sitting here, and he knows all about red tape, so it's good to see him sitting there and listening to this speech about legislation that's going to have an enormous impact for consumers across Australia.

Australian produce is one of our biggest exports and is a major source of Australia's wealth. Anything we can do to make our products easier to distinguish and find, not only in our local markets but overseas, can be nothing but a good thing. This is an example of how a government and parliamentarians get on with the job of getting out of the way of businesses and focusing on supporting Australian produce. I commend this bill to the House.

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

It's quite surprising that we're here, still debating this issue. I said to my office, 'Is this bill up again?' They said, 'No, it's another slight amendment.' Here we are again—how many years into this government? We're still talking about country-of-origin labelling. It makes you question why this amendment didn't come up the first time we debated this issue and why it's taken so long for this minor amendment to come before us. But, as the member for Hunter has said in moving his second reading amendment, it does give us a chance to really look at this government's record when it comes to Australian agricultural policy and how this government is failing to deliver any decent reform on time to ensure that Australia's agricultural sector continues to grow, thrive and achieve its fullest potential.

As previous speakers have acknowledged, the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is a minor amendment that will ensure that authorised officers can enforce country-of-origin labelling requirements on imported goods. In the shops, you laugh when you pick up that box that says 'Made from local and imported products'. Great! Fantastic! That tells me not a lot, and they've put that on the label.

However, no labelling is perfect. Among the concerns that have been raised with me about the new labelling that we have is that in some cases the actual country has been removed. Whilst giving you a percentage or a bar showing you what is local and not local is good, what some people said to me is: 'Well, I used to know if those tomatoes were from Italy. I've got more confidence in the Italian product than I do in a product, say, from a country where they've had a hep A scare or something of that nature.' So there is some concern even with this labelling that it doesn't really give consumers all the information that they require. I think that that's what's really hard when we get to debating this at this technical level at the federal level, and I think that what we need in our country-of-origin labelling is a really robust ACCC that continues to work with stakeholders, with consumers and with growers and producers about how we can give people the information that they require.

I can remember when this issue was first being discussed. The then agriculture minister tried to link the hep A scare with the berries that came in from China. The problem with trying to link those two issues was that people knew where those berries came from. It said where they came from on the box. It actually said straight out on the box that this was a product of China. The problem was not about the labelling; the problem was that there wasn't a proper biosecurity regime, the product wasn't being tested, and people were in fact infected, not once but twice. There were two scares with hep A.

This is an area where the government has dropped the ball—biosecurity, making sure that we have the most rigid and robust biosecurity framework in this country to give Australian consumers and families the security that they need about the food that they're eating. This biosecurity risk also puts Australian producers at risk. We've heard Tasmanian members speak about the fruit fly problem in Tasmania. I really feel for our Tasmanians. On mainland Australia we have had the problem associated with fruit fly for quite some time. I know from growers in Victoria around my electorate of Bendigo, particularly in Harcourt, how bad the fruit fly has been this year for their crops and the frustration they have.

Another area this government is failing in is to invest enough in research to get on top of these pests. In the last few months, Tasmania has gone from being completely free of fruit fly to having discovered it and then having exclusion zones. This government has said very little about this issue. It does not have an action plan to instantly react to stop the spread of fruit fly. I had the chance to meet with some of the growers in Tasmania. On the day that fruit fly was discovered and the exclusion zone was implemented, China instantly banned the importation of cherries coming from this particular area of Tasmania, so there was a drop in value of these cherries. The farmer went from having a buyer at $20 a box down to a buyer at $11 a box. That's the cost if we don't get biosecurity right. If the government had an action plan it could instantly enact to reassure China or other countries that we are on top of these biosecurity threats, then maybe that farmer wouldn't have lost that client and maybe they'd still be earning $20 a box instead of $11 a box. That's a massive drop for anybody to try and absorb. The government has been slow to respond to issues of biosecurity and it is not investing enough resources in it. It is not ensuring that agriculture in this country is meeting its full potential.

Farmers in our agricultural community are really proud of the clean and green image that we have with Australian food, but it can only continue if we have the strongest biosecurity measures to protect our growers. The government have failed to develop a way to market that strategy overseas. The government like to champion their free trade agreements and what they've done for agriculture, but where they have failed again to help agriculture reach its full potential is in doing anything about the non-tariff barriers to trade that exist. Not one person from the government has stood up in this place and talked about the 40 per cent non-tariff barrier to chickpeas that India has just announced. It's great to see our growers be innovative. Our farmers decided, in the Year of Pulses: 'Chickpea prices are rising. Let's change what we're growing.' More farmers invested in growing chickpeas—fantastic. They were growing an industry on their own, developing a market. India, seeing the competition, whacked a 40 per cent tariff on Australian chickpeas. What's the government doing about it? Why aren't they actively and aggressively protecting our farmers and standing up? There are also other non-tariff barriers.

In a hearing of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation the last time parliament sat, the NFF said that the government is going too slowly in working to abolish and reduce non-tariff barriers. There are problems with China, Japan and lots of other countries that we currently have free trade agreements with, yet the government have dropped the ball. They think that getting a free trade agreement is enough. It is not. Not enough work is being done by this government to really help our exporters in agriculture benefit by reducing the non-tariff barriers that we have.

Labour is a massive issue for us in agriculture, and I'm not just talking about the debacle with the backpacker tax—and that was a debacle; I'm also talking about the government's failure to attract and retain Australians in the full-time jobs that exist in agriculture. Because they focus so much on seasonal workers, on the people required for harvest, they have forgotten to promote agriculture as a career opportunity and job opportunity to all the Australians who may be interested in working in agriculture.

There are serious labour shortages across the agricultural sector. Whether it be highly skilled veterinarians to help with breeding programs and livestock, whether it be the need for scientists to continue to improve everything from water moisture in the soil to the quality of the soil that we have, whether it be people to help do the marketing for businesses being agribusinesses or whether it be people working on a farm in the packing rooms or helping with the pruning, there are good jobs in agriculture. Some have estimated that, for every person who takes a job in agriculture, there are four other jobs waiting to be filled. This is why the farmers and the agricultural sector are saying, 'We need backpackers.' It is because they have been left with no other option. The government has failed to come up with a decent workforce strategy for agriculture.

Do you know how unproductive backpackers are? I will tell you. The government is saying, 'Let's bring more backpackers out to work in the seasonal workforce,' but in some areas they have a 40 per cent turnover in backpackers. How is that productive? They need 2,000 and just under 800 of those will disappear before the six weeks is out. How is that a productive workforce? They have people who they train to be constantly training up the new backpackers. One farmer said to me last week, 'I'd rather have someone other than a backpacker. I feel like I am a camp counsellor when I have backpackers on my farm. They're here for a holiday; they are not really here to work.' Surely we can do better than that. Surely we can do better than our farmers having to be camp counsellors for a group of backpackers. We must do better than that if agriculture is going to continue to achieve its potential.

There is a problem with this government's failure to (1) acknowledge climate change and (2) work with our farmers so that they can stay ahead of the impacts of climate change. We know through really progressive, active farm groups and farmers who come to see us who are involved in groups that are against climate change or working to mitigate against the effects of climate change that they are working out how to be more efficient with water, they are working out when to plant and they are working out when to harvest. They acknowledge that our climate is changing and they are trying to use all the science and all the technology at hand—and they are doing this with very little help from the government, who continue to have people on their back bench saying, 'We're climate change sceptics; we don't acknowledge it.' We can be in front of climate change. We can continue to grow and produce in this country. But it needs to be informed by the science and we need to work fast. We need to make sure that we have the research dollars going into the CSIRO and that they are connecting with our farmers.

Water will continue to be an issue, and I'm not just talking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is a plan that must have integrity if all of our states, all of our communities, all of our irrigators and all of the stakeholders can have confidence in it. I'm also talking about water in other areas of agriculture. We've done some amazing things in the Murray-Darling Basin in terms of water efficiency. Where's the government's program to help roll out that water efficiency to other agricultural areas? I note that the new Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources was in Werribee last Friday. According to the VFF, he kind of said, 'I've got to get out to a farm, but it has to be 45 minutes from Melbourne.' Luckily, in Werribee they are still growing lettuces, broccoli and cauliflower. So they went out to Lalor, which I guess we could say is the safest Labor agricultural seat that we have. It was the lucky seat to get a visit from the agriculture minister last week. He hasn't been to Gippsland or Bendigo or up to Shepparton, but he did make it out to Werribee. Water is an issue for those irrigators. They lose 40 per cent of their water because of ageing infrastructure. The state government has put money on the table, but there is no federal money to help improve that system. This is an opportunity that the government is ignoring.

The government is not doing enough to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential. If it really is going to be the future area of growth for us, if it really is going to achieve the opportunity to give young Australians a career for life, we need a government that is serious about agriculture and doesn't just tinker around the edges, like this legislation does. Most Australians agree that we need to see some change in our country-of-origin labelling. After five-plus years of this government, we are still kind of tinkering. We haven't moved to tackle the real issues that our agriculture industry is facing.

A final issue that I wish to mention is telecommunications. This government has completely messed up the rollout of the NBN and telecommunications in the regions. On the Mobile Black Spot Program, which the government champions, the Audit Office revealed that in so many cases it did not actually improve coverage. Why would you spend money on a program that didn't improve mobile phone coverage? In the area of having access to the internet, farmers can go completely wireless so that the technology can inform them about when to move water around or so that they can monitor stock. It is a bit hard when you are squashed onto the Sky Muster satellite NBN program with users from the city, because this government hasn't rolled out enough fibre-to-the-premises technology or fixed wireless technology.

This government is failing agriculture. They pretend to say that they represent the regions, they pretend to say that they represent the bush, yet all they do is tinker at the edges and turn up to the parties afterwards. We need genuine reform and genuine policy that is built in partnership with regional communities, whether it be around water, climate change, the non-trade tariff barriers, tackling the labour crisis that we have in the regions or working on biosecurity to rebuild our clean and green image. This government is failing on all of those fronts.

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

I rise to speak in support of the member for Hunter's second reading amendment to the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. It is with no joy that I support this amendment. I would like to thank members on this side of the House, the Labor members, who have spoken, sadly, on the very poor record of this government when it comes to agriculture, particularly for regional communities like mine. I always knew when I came to this place that the Liberals were never serious about supporting regional Australia, but I had hoped that those agrarian socialists in the National Party would be different. Sadly, I have been very disappointed. In many regions of my state of Tasmania, the Liberals and Nationals have overseen many policy failures in the agricultural sector. Since the departure of the member for New England from the agriculture portfolio, the number of farmers who have come up to me and said that he would have to be the worst agriculture minister in their recollection is quite startling. I will go through some of those policy failures, because they have hit regional Tasmania, which is most of the state, extremely hard.

In May 2016, dairy farmers were hit with a clawback practice by Murray Goulburn and Fonterra. This triggered an Australian dairy crisis. These retrospective price step-downs left farmers who were supplying Murray Goulburn and Fonterra devastated. In my electorate, the devastation was there to be seen. Farmers were forced to lay off workers, make difficult financial decisions and, in many cases, work days and weeks on end just to survive. This government had the chance to help farmers but refused to join Labor in calling upon the board of Murray Goulburn to deviate from their profit-sharing mechanism and return more money to farmers by way of a higher farm gate price. Instead, farmers had to wait 12 months for an investigation to come to a conclusion. The investigation reached the conclusion that Murray Goulburn had done the wrong thing, and now there is a belated prosecution of Murray Goulburn.

The government offered farmers concessional loans, saddling them with more debt at a time when most could not afford to take it on. Those farmers who did try and access concessional loans were tied up in knots by bureaucratic delays and paperwork. Many had to wait weeks and months for any form of assistance. I will take this time to note that I wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, inviting him to my electorate to speak to my dairy farmers—no strings attached. It wasn't to be political. They were actually crying out for him to come and speak with them at the height of this crisis. He wrote back to me and completely ignored my invitation. Not one word of 'Sorry, I can't come' or 'I'll come another time.' There was absolutely no mention of that offer. Then I found out from a farmer that the Liberal Party of Tasmania will not allow any member of the National Party into the state. I've extended that same invitation to the new minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, and I really do hope that he can buck that trend of the Liberal Party and say, 'I'm going to come to Tasmania and see what is actually happening,' because there's a lot going on. Biosecurity is one thing that I will talk about. It's absolutely devastating for my electorate and for my farmers, and this government has done nothing to make it a priority.

Debate interrupted.