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

Yesterday, in the short time I had to speak on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017, I spoke about the policy failure of this government when it comes to agriculture, and this continues to be the case for agricultural policy, particularly in Tasmania. I reiterate my point that I had, on a number of occasions, invited the previous agriculture minister, the member for New England, to come to my electorate to speak to dairy farmers at the height of the dairy crisis, but he failed to do so. But that is not the only example of policy failure and inaction by this government when it comes to the farmers in my electorate.

The former agriculture minister liked to blow his trumpet about investments in water infrastructure. That was nothing but a fraud, because every water development and irrigation scheme commenced in Tasmania was under state and federal Labor governments. Labor established Tasmanian Irrigation to build on the work of Tasmanian Labor's water development plan. Tasmanian Irrigation developed schemes as public-private partnerships, working with private landholders to establish how much water is wanted and the cost of building a scheme shared between the public and private sectors. There are now eight operational schemes from tranche 1, from the Midlands to the north and north-west in my electorate. In total, Labor's irrigation program represents a public-private commitment of over $310 million. Tranche 2 schemes have also been completed in the north-east, the southern Central Highlands and Circular Head in my electorate—all under Labor. I recall the irony of the former Deputy Prime Minister, on his one and only visit to Tasmania over the last two years, praising himself for Labor's Southern Highlands scheme. There has been no vision from the former agriculture minister, and only now in the dying days of the state Liberal Hodgman government have they announced tranche 3.

The Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, has been aided and abetted by his federal colleagues and has done nothing over the past four years in government. This government can't even get it right when it comes to supporting Tasmania's horticultural industry. They have failed to open up markets for export, have imposed a systemic failure when it comes to securing labour, and in recent weeks at a state and federal level they have been exposed as biosecurity failures.

Economic opportunity for Tasmania, particularly in my electorate—and also I note in a number of National Party seats—exists through the expansion of the blueberry industry. Demand for Tasmanian and Australian blueberries continues to grow at a rapid rate. China is one of the fastest-growing blueberry markets in the world, yet Australian farmers cannot access that market, because the Australian government has not established an export protocol with the Chinese government. Instead of eating Australian blueberries, Chinese shoppers are eating blueberries from Canada, Chile, Peru and Argentina. While this government has been sitting on its hands, these countries have all signed export protocols with the Chinese government for the export of blueberries. Tasmanian and Australian farmers are missing out, and Tasmanian and Australian regional jobs are not there because of the failure of this government.

I'm unsure if this government's inaction on blueberries is deliberate or just pure incompetence. Perhaps it is deliberate, because this government continues to fail our farmers, who are unable to secure enough labour to harvest their crops. In Tasmania, there is genuine concern from fruitgrowers that there will not be enough labour to harvest autumn product, and the apples are coming into season in just a few weeks time. While the industry has just managed with the summer harvest, a much larger workforce is required for the late summer and autumn harvest of apples and pears. Industry has told me a combination of issues highlighted by the backpacker tax and changes to the 88-day second visa requirements are now seeing the prospect of fruit falling to the ground. There are other issues, such as exploitation by unscrupulous labour hire bosses, strict picking versus select picking, and inconsistent piece rates. This government has also overseen a breakdown between regional job providers and industry. There is no consistent way in which a farmer can secure labour. Yet what is the solution of the Tasmanian state and federal governments? Nothing but deafening silence.

I have touched on some of the government's failings when it comes to supporting Tasmanian farmers, but I have left the worst till last. Under the conservatives, Tasmania has seen Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust, myrtle rust, Pacific oyster mortality syndrome and now a fruit fly catastrophe. What started out with a fruit fly being detected on Flinders Island has spread to fruit fly being discovered around the Devonport area, which is my home town, and also in George Town on mainland Tasmania. Even worse, a shipment of fruit for retail sale containing fruit fly arrived in Tasmania and sat on supermarket shelves. Growers have been forced to dump their product and are now experiencing significant additional costs to fumigate their product. Some have given up trying to save those crops that have a short shelf life. As part of its protocol, the highly valuable Chinese market is refusing to take fruit from the control zones. Taiwan has also locked out Tasmanian fruit. Farmers are being forced to sell their product into other markets and are receiving half the price they would if they could export to China.

These are just some of the examples of devastation local producers have suffered because of this biosecurity failure. Worse, the Tasmanian brand is being damaged and Tasmania's fruit-fly-free status has potentially been compromised because of systemic failures by this government and the Tasmanian state Liberal government. By any measure, there has been a biosecurity breakdown at the state and federal levels. At the state level, we know the Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, cut $1 million from Biosecurity Tasmania in his first budget. So deep were his cuts they have put the hardworking staff from Biosecurity Tasmania under extreme pressure. Just imagine what they're going through now, dealing with this fruit fly catastrophe. Corners have been cut, and even in the current emergency we still have people arriving by sea and air without any checks. This is despite a promise by Will Hodgman's government in 2015 that every flight in and out of Hobart and Launceston would be met by sniffer dogs. You can hardly fulfil that promise when you cut the budget.

Documents obtained under the right to information show this cut contributed to a $1.9 million budget deficit in Biosecurity Tasmania as of August 2015. It is alarming that the discussion points from this meeting state:

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 capacity so prioritisation and a reduction of program activity will need to be undertaken.

No wonder we have fruit fly in Tasmania now.

The state Liberals' incompetence is also matched by a failure to act by this Prime Minister and his former agriculture minister. This government abolished the Standing Council on Primary Industries. It has failed to respond to the recommendations of the Plant Biosecurity CRC fruit fly report and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity review. It also attempted to abolish the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity—a move Labor successfully blocked. Now this is not playing politics with fruit fly in Tasmania; this is devastating the local economies in my electorate and the jobs and the businesses there that are supplying export markets with fruit. This government and the state government are sitting by and doing nothing.

In a litany of biosecurity failures we have also learnt, from a leaked Tasmanian government question time brief, that the federal government has also cut Tasmania's biosecurity funding. The brief states:

There have been some staff reductions across the large organisation that is Biosecurity Tasmania, primarily due to reductions in Federal funding for providing Commonwealth biosecurity services.

There you have it: a failure to act on a national stage at the same time cutting Tasmania's biosecurity funding. This is at a time when visitor numbers to Tasmania have been increasing exponentially. The question time brief was silent on their action. What did the Tasmanian Liberals do to stand up for Tasmania in Canberra? Nothing; not a thing. The Tasmanian Liberal Premier always has been and always will be too weak to stand up for my state.

I did, however, note the irony last week when the Tasmanian agriculture minister tried to abrogate any responsibility for this fruit fly catastrophe. During a media conference he chose to blame this government with the words, 'This seems to be a national system breakdown.' The Tasmanian government is now blaming the coalition federal government for a biosecurity breakdown that is having a tremendous impact on my state. So who is actually responsible? Is it Mr Rockliff, the current Deputy Premier of Tasmania, or the former Deputy Prime Minister? This side of the House knows it's a combined responsibility.

Unlike state and federal conservatives, Labor has responded. State and federal Labor have made a $5.7 million commitment to boost Tasmania's biosecurity actions—a commitment welcomed by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association's CEO Peter Skillern. Mr Skillern said:

This commitment demonstrates a recognition of the importance of agriculture to the State, and its heavy reliance on a well-resourced biosecurity system.

He said that further commitment to focus on prevention and preparedness—which has been lacking because of these cuts—was to be highly commended. He said:

Markets must be assured that the Tasmanian biosecurity system is second to none and of a world-class standard.

There is no doubt that this government has been failing Tasmanian farmers. It failed them on dairy. It is failing them on export opportunities. It is failing them on water development. It is failing them on securing enough labour. And it is failing them on biosecurity. Tasmanian farmers deserve so much more than what the state Liberal and federal Liberal-National governments have to offer. I do hope that the member for Maranoa takes up my offer that I did extend to the former agriculture minister to come to my state, see what we can do here and actually listen to the farmers, because the Tasmanian farmers do matter.

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

(   This is the first time I have spoken from the back bench since being in the Senate. It's very important to rise on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. To be honest, the country-of-origin labelling system was something that I fought for for quite some time. It was seminal in making sure that our nation clearly understands where products come from and what proportion comes from where.

In the past, under a Labor government, we had an anomaly where labels would say 'Made of Australian and imported ingredients', 'Made in Australia', 'Product of Australia', and the whole thing was completely and utterly confusing, and I would say in many instances misleading. It had been the case for quite some time that we wanted a labelling system that clearly told the Australian people what came from the Australian farm. It is their right to buy something that comes from somewhere else if they wish to—no-one is denying that—but it is also their right to have the capacity to buy, with their money, product from their nation. This underpins what we are doing to support Australian jobs, to make sure that people can say, 'Well, I can buy tomatoes from Italy,' and that's fair enough, 'or I can buy tomatoes that actually support Australian jobs, and if there's 30c or 40c difference in the price of the can, that is not an issue for me, because my respect for my nation and my desire to support my nation warrants me paying the extra money so that I can have that product.'

At the time, with the industry minister, the then member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, we went to work on how we could do this. We had the green triangle with the gold kangaroo to show clearly that a product was made in Australia. Then there was a bar that clearly indicated the proportion of the product that came from Australia. I do get a great sense of pride in the work done by this parliament and this side of the House, and also through my own endeavours, when I go through the supermarkets now and, more and more often, see that labelling system in place. At the time, people argued that it would be the end of civilisation as we knew it, that it was a disaster. Of course they would say that, because so many of the supermarkets and so many of the producers made a lot of money by getting cheaper imported goods and putting them under the home brand label or such like. People would think that 'home brand' would probably mean that a product had come from home. Well, it had come from the home of the major supermarkets but not from our home, Australia; it had come from places all around the world. They are welcome to sell it; that's their commercial right—we believe in free enterprise—but if there is an alternative it must clearly show what portion comes from Australia. I firmly believe the push-back was because they didn't want people to know that and that our labelling system clearly indicated it.

As yet another example of how we stood behind agriculture, I note that we in the coalition, whilst I was the agricultural minister, had the biggest turnaround in agricultural income in the history of our nation. Of course, that was not by reason of the minister; it was by reason of a whole range of factors, most ably assisted by a government that took agriculture very seriously. Under the previous, Labor government and the inept minister that we had, the agriculture department's budget was more than halved. I am yet to be convinced that the Labor Party have a serious policy that they wish to take to the dispatch box in this House and discuss. It is something that they remain in an awkward silence about, because they have no vision for agriculture, and this resonates in regional areas because Labor and the Greens are known to have no vision for agriculture. The Greens are content on trying to basically shut it down and return us all to being hunters and gatherers on the forest floor eating beetles and nuts. That's their vision for the future. Apparently, as long as you can pick it off a tree in the middle of a rainforest, it's all right to eat, but if you have the temerity to go forth and try and develop the land and make sure that we get an efficient form of agriculture, then they have no view of it.

We have developed agriculture in a holistic form. The policy that we took forward related not only to our desire for the creation of new dams and water infrastructure. In this respect, I note such things as the Macalister Irrigation District, which payment has gone towards upgrading. I also note the vast amount of work done on water infrastructure in Tasmania, supported by the Commonwealth, which the member who spoke prior to me should have mentioned. That is transforming the central highlands of Tasmania into another centre of agricultural excellence. Our vision for agricultural excellence also extended to creating centres of excellence, such as in Armidale, with the relocation of APVMA, or in Wagga, with AgriFutures, formerly known as RIRDC. Creating these centres of excellence to further assist the development of our agricultural economy is part of our vision for our nation.

What I also note is that one of the great problems our nation had when we were competing against America, South America, Russia, Ukraine, Europe was that our intermodal transport capacity for bulk commodities was severely deficient. Over a long period of time we have fought for and attained funding for the Inland Rail. I know, Deputy Speaker Coulton, that you are very aware of this because you and the people in the seat of Parkes will be some of the greatest beneficiaries of that multibillion-dollar investment. It was something that we fought very hard for. Other people in the past talked about it—the member for Grayndler talked about it; I don't know if the member for Hunter talks about much; he hardly ever gets a question—but we actually delivered the funding. That's a vast difference. That is the difference between discussion and delivery, and I think it clearly shows what a difference there is in having an effective government.

I put the challenge to the Labor Party: what exactly is your policy on agriculture? What do we say to the people of regional and rural Australia about what is now this nation's fastest growing sector in our GDP? That is what's happened under this government. It is the fastest growing sector in our GDP. I would like to know when the Labor Party are going to rise to the task and say that they also support the government's position on the construction of the Inland Rail so that we have the capacity for greater transport efficiencies and greater cost reductions in the movement of bulk commodities such as wheat, cotton, canola, sorghum—whatever you like.

We heard the previous member bring up the biosecurity issue. The Labor Party decimated the agricultural budget. We had to refurbish our investment in biosecurity measures through the $4 billion agricultural white paper. I commend the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for the work they did in assisting in stopping the further outbreak of Panama race 4 and the white spot outbreak, both of which have been contained if not eliminated. These are great outcomes.

The next step in creating a centre of excellence was the vision to make Orange Australia's Chicago, somewhere where the finances that are pertinent to agricultural products can be further expanded. We created the multibillion-dollar Regional Investment Corporation and moved it to Orange. I note that the Labor Party fought against this every step of the way, because the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, is led by the nose by the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer was completely and utterly disparaging about this vision for Australia, which is something that supports farmers in drought and farmers who have had to deal with the vagaries of the market caused by the issues of Murray Goulburn. We put the Regional Investment Corporation forward for the purpose of doing work in this vital area, and it has the capacity to expand its mandate further.

Let's go through them: the Inland Rail, the Regional Investment Corporation, the expansion of dams. The Labor Party wish to take money out of the dams portfolio, not expand it. They want to take it out. They have no vision. They are bereft of the ideals of Curtin and Chifley. They have now become a vacuous hold of people who have had no experience in being on the land. Maybe I'll be corrected, but I can't think of any member in the Labor Party who actually comes from the land. That was not the case in the past. We had people such as Mick Young, who was a former shearer. We actually had people who had got their hands dirty on the land. But they're not there now.

The Greens with their desire to tie up everything in green tape are becoming, more and more, the enemy of people on the land. They have gone from having serious concerns—which we must hold—on issues such as protection of aquifers and prime agricultural land to basically something that wants to inhibit any development on land.

Now that I have the capacity that's been given to me—with a pay cut—through being on the backbench, I want to make clear some of the things we need to do. One of those issues is of course the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This act is excessive. This act goes beyond protecting the environment to completely inhibiting the capacity of people on the land to deal with the private asset that they have paid for.

One would hope that this side of the House believes in private ownership. We believe in governments staying away. If you come into an area and decide that by mandate, by edict, piece by piece, you'll dispossess a person on the land of their capacity to properly own the land, if you take from them, without payment, an asset that was formally theirs—that is not the side of conservative politics and not the side of people who believe in a market economy where you should have just and fair compensation. If the community truly believes it is the community's right and in the community's interest to take an asset off a private owner then it must be the community's responsibility to pay for it. We saw that in so many regional areas with tree clearing legislation. As many people saw it, an asset that they formerly owned was taken over and owned by the government without payment. There was a word for that in the past; it is called 'communism' when the government decides it is not going to acquire an asset but take it without payment.

This act has now to be amended. I look forward to the review, which I think has to happen by 2019. We will move forward to a proper review of this and give back to farmers their rights which in the past have been taken from them. In doing that, we will also make sure that key infrastructure in regional areas is not inhibited by excessive environmental studies. Around Peak Hill—and you would be familiar with this in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker—hundreds of thousands of dollars was required to get approval to build a railway line. Where? Where a railway line is! In my seat of New England, with the Bolivia Hill realignment, I believe millions of dollars was spent on environmental studies to build a road where a road is. This is Kafkaesque. This has to change. The National Party stands proudly in making sure that we fight for this issue.

I go back to country of origin labelling and agriculture in general. I note that this amendment itself is meaningless; it has no purpose. It is a true reflection of the Labor Party's agricultural outlook: they have no meaning; they are purposeless. It is almost comical how little attention the Labor Party tactics group gives to the shadow minister for agriculture to ever get a question in question time. Is it because he has no knowledge of agriculture or does not care about agriculture, or is it because the Labor Party has no vision on agriculture? I think it is all three.

What we have to do now, what we have to fight for, is to make sure that one of our nation's greatest benefits, the massive turnaround in agriculture, is not stymied and continues to be built on. I commend the work that the member for Maranoa, the new Minister for Agriculture, has been doing in this area. He has really hit the ground running and is doing a great job.

They talk about issues such as the blueberry industry. Sitting behind me are the member for Page, for whom the blueberry industry is very important, and the member for Wide Bay, who definitely likes eating blueberries—and they go well with ice cream! I know that both of them would understand that the expansion of our agricultural capacity is driven in part by our three free trade agreements and the massive turnaround in our agricultural exports to China, Japan and Korea as we build on the foundations of the past but have a vision for the future.

There is no question about it: if any parliamentary side wishes to understand our economy properly and is bereft of ideas on what they do in agriculture then they do not deserve the treasury bench. I am proud of the work we have done on dams. I am proud of the work we have done on accelerated depreciation on fences. The Greens have now moved to get rid of the dog fences out in the Paroo. And why wouldn't they! I suppose they are having such a great effect that they just don't want them!

I support the continued work that we will do. The essence of this nation was built on agriculture and, in the future, it will continue to do the same.

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

We've just listened to 15 minutes of empty rhetoric from the member for New England. It's interesting to note that this legislation was introduced into the House by the member for New England back in October last year. At the time he introduced it, he spoke for what might have been maybe one or two minutes at most in a half-page speech to the House. Now he comes into the House about four months later and does a 15-minute diatribe on what he thinks his achievements were as the minister for agriculture.

I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Hunter in respect of the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. This is important legislation. It's important for several reasons, but I want to go to the heart of what this bill is all about. Firstly, it increases importers' accountability for food safety in this country; secondly, it improves the monitoring and management of new and emerging food safety risks; and, thirdly, it improves the incident responses by government. They are three critical matters, and I will go to why they are in just a moment.

Responsibility for these matters effectively rests with both the federal government and each of the state and territory governments—and, through an agreement we have with New Zealand, it also includes New Zealand. Indeed, FSANZ, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, developed the code that incorporates the standards that apply right across from Australia and into New Zealand in respect of food safety matters.

It's important legislation because in 2015-16 Australia imported $18 billion worth of food into this country. Interestingly, only two years earlier, in 2013-14, the figure was $15 billion. In other words, over two years there was a 20 per cent increase in food that was imported into Australia, and, based on the most recent five years of figures, it represents roughly a 10 per cent continuing increase in the value of processed food that is brought into Australia and about seven per in the value of unprocessed foods on an annual basis. So we can expect that we will continue to see an increase in the amount of food that comes into Australia, which is somewhat surprising, given that we are generally considered as a food-producing nation—yet, simultaneously, we continue to increase the amount of food that comes into Australia.

Again, there's a reason for that—perhaps not a good reason, but there is a reason for that—and that is that most of our raw food is exported to overseas countries, the processing takes place in other countries and then the food is sent back to Australia. It's disappointing that the processing isn't done here in Australia, where in the past it was and where it should continue to be. It's disappointing not only because it affects our economy but also because, quite frankly, the processing standards that we apply in Australia are generally considered to be much better than the processing standards applied in many of the countries that those operations have been transferred to.

Most of the food that comes into Australia now comes from New Zealand, the US, China, Thailand and Singapore. Indeed, if we look at the South-East Asian countries from which we import food, collectively, as a single source the highest amount of food is coming from those countries. Individually, those countries are still behind New Zealand, the USA and China, but the food that comes from them collectively adds up to as much as the food that comes in from any other country. And countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia continue to grow as places where food is processed and then exported back to Australia.

The concern about that happening is not just because of the processing in the facilities in those countries and the standards they apply, which I doubt very much would be on a par with the standards in Australia, but also because much of the food that comes into Australia is actually grown in those countries, again under conditions that would not be acceptable in Australia. If Australians were aware of some of the stories that I have been told about growing methods used overseas—in terms of the contamination of the land on which products are grown, the chemicals that are used and so on—they would probably not want to buy the food. But they are not aware, and so we rely on governments to ensure that, when food is imported, it does meet certain standards.

That's why this legislation is important. At the very least, we rely on governments to ensure that we have laws in place which clearly identify where the food comes from so that consumers can then make their own choice based on where the food they wish to buy comes from and which particular food they wish to buy.

And that's understandably so, because, only a couple of years ago we had the berry scare, which resulted in some 33 cases of hepatitis. It is interesting that, whilst the source of the contamination, where it came from, was, I believe, never formally confirmed, there was a belief or a perception that those berries came from a producer in China, and so the importer of those berries saw their profit drop from $16 million to $2 million almost overnight. This shows that Australian consumers want to know where their food comes from, and, if they have a concern, they will choose to buy their food from elsewhere. Rightly or wrongly, whether that supplier was responsible or not, consumers wanted to avoid whatever risks they thought they were facing if they bought their product from them.

It's not just the berry issue that has come to light in recent years that has caused concern for consumers in Australia. There are other concerns that relate to the knowledge of where food comes from. When we look at the food that has been recalled in recent years—and I just want to go through some of the statistics with respect to this—in the decade between 2007 and 2017, there were 608 recalls of different foods across Australia. That's not 608 items; that's 608 particular types of foods, which you could multiply into tens of thousands of products. The breakdown of those recalls is as follows: undeclared allergens, 205 recalls; microbial contamination, 187 recalls; foreign matter in foods, 112 recalls; biotoxins, 36 recalls; chemical contamination, 26 recalls; and other recalls 25. Labelling recalls were made on only 17 occasions.

The critical question is: how many of those recalls related to imported foods? That information is not made clear, but it would be interesting to know. I particularly make that point with respect to undeclared allergens in food or labelling not accurately telling you what's in the food because in 2013 a young 10-year-old boy died from drinking coconut milk. It had other milk in it that was not listed on the package. The boy was allergic to the other milk and died. There was another case, involving coconut oil, where a young person also suffered an allergic reaction. The reality is that we are talking about people's lives here and the risks they face when food is either contaminated or not properly labelled, and so the consumer doesn't know exactly what it is that they are consuming.

The other matter relating to knowing where food comes from and the risks faced by Australian farmers is the infestation of Australian produce by overseas products that have not been properly grown. We saw that with the white spot disease and the devastation that it caused the Queensland prawn industry only a year or so ago. More recently, fruit fly has been found in Tasmania, and that, in turn, could ruin the livelihoods of Tasmanian farmers. Again, this means tens of thousands of dollars in losses to individuals and millions of dollars in losses to the local economy, and additional losses to the whole economy of people who rely on those particular producers. This occurs because, whilst the minister and the government come into the House and talk up the regulations that we have in place, the reality is that those regulations are not matched with the resourcing that is required to implement and carry out those regulations, to police them, because if they were, it would be very unlikely that the white spot in the prawn industry or the fruit fly in Tasmania would ever have occurred. They would have been found at the border.

My understanding is that very few of the foods that are imported into Australia are, indeed, ever checked out and inspected by the authorities. I note that in the six months ending June 2014 there were some 44,648 tests of imported food undertaken as part of the inspection regime. The compliance rate was listed as 98.5 per cent, with 79 per cent of the noncompliance being due to breaches of labelling requirements. That might sound very encouraging, but the reality is that even 1½ per cent noncompliance for packaged foods that come by the millions each year into this country can still result in huge devastation either to an industry or to individuals if the food isn't up to standard. So I'm not comforted by those figures. Indeed, quite frankly, we need to do a lot better than that.

I want to talk briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter on behalf of Labor. It reads:

"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."

That's the amendment that we will be moving in this place. I want to say in respect to that amendment two things. If you are a farmer—perhaps a cattle grower, sheep farmer, grain grower or even cotton farmer—then under this government you may get a look in. You may get some support. But if you're a farmer in South Australia or Tasmania, where the National Party have no representation, all you get is patronising lip service. We saw that not only with respect to the situation in Tasmania—and the member for Braddon quite properly articulated how this government has ignored the Tasmanian farmers—but also in South Australia a couple of years ago when there was serious flooding in the northern plains. The vegetable growers in that area received almost no support whatsoever. They received a visit from the Prime Minister, and that was about it. They were also devastated. They don't have farms that run into the thousands of acres, but they still have farms that turn over millions of dollars and, for many of them, their whole season's produce was destroyed. We see that if you're a fruit and vegetable grower or a horticultural grower somewhere else in Australia then you just get pushed to one side. We've seen that with the Shepparton growers in Victoria as well. So I say to this government: get real about your agricultural policy, because it seems to be targeted at one sector and one sector only, and it certainly is not targeted in support of all farmers across all of Australia.

The last matter I want to touch on is the issue of free trade agreements. Members of government come into this place and laud their free trade agreement as though they are going to be the saviours of our farming industry. Yet the same members would know full well that from day one Australia has relied on our farming industry as one of our major sources of exports. In fact, the export of Australian farming products has occurred ever since Australia was established as a farming country and before any free trade agreements were in place. I've looked at some of the figures relating to China. I know many farmers at a very personal level. Most of them have been trading with China for a decade or two, and they didn't rely on free trade agreements to do so. The truth of the matter is that, in a global market, if you have a product that is in demand at the right price then you will have a market for it anywhere in the world. When you do away with tariffs, you have to consider that you are dealing with a product where the prices go up and down. It is the same with exchange rates. It is not tariffs that make the real difference to whether people can export overseas.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 and on the amendment. It's great to have the minister in the chamber, as well as the member for Wide Bay, because there are some things he may be unaware of, and I think he should be aware of some of the wonderful things that are happening in agriculture, especially in my area.

For a number of reasons, people have an intrinsic right to know where their food comes from. It was quite clear from a lot of research that had been done by the department that people thought that the labelling laws that we had were messy and confusing and, indeed, led to labels that weren't accurate. There are things that clear labelling does. I think the Australian people have a preference to buy homegrown food and to be very clear all about all the ingredients in products that they are buying and where they're from, because I think the intrinsic nature of Australian consumers is that they would always support a homegrown or local product above an imported product.

I could—in fact, I'm going to—give you a number of examples, just from my region, of homegrown products and why they are fully supported by the locals, albeit sometimes at a higher price, because they know (1) that the product is clean and (2) that they are supporting the local economy and local people in buying them. Norco—you may well have heard of it, Deputy Speaker—is a dairy co-op in my region. They have a great name and produce great milk products, including ice cream. When you go into a local supermarket or store in my region, the Norco milks are always the first to go. They are not the cheapest, but again, because people are aware that it's a homegrown, local product—the labelling is pretty clear—that's what people are going to go for. We also have a local meat co-op, the Northern Co-operative Meat Company. Simon Stahl and the team there do a wonderful job. The products from those meatworks are very well supported in our region. We have a blueberry industry and a fishing industry, and we have much, much more. We have a lot of water too—which may interest the minister—to produce this great product.

Blueberries are a very important industry, and I know that the minister is doing great work. We've just recently got blueberries onto the list to discuss the protocols for export so we can get blueberries into China, and we already have access to many markets. That industry on its own has turned around two regions in my electorate. One is Woolgoolga. Gurmesh Singh is the chair of the Oz Berries co-op there. It's a big industry employing many locals in the Woolgoolga region and, indeed, backpackers who travel through as well. Another company is run by Ridley Bell, in a huge blueberry-growing area that he's developed in the last few years out at Tabulam. I remember the first time I went to Tabulam after he'd set up and had the pickers there. Tabulam is, with all due respect, not a big place. I drove around. The cafe was packed. There were people everywhere. I thought: 'What's going on here? There must be a party on or something.' But it was just the industry that had been built there and the jobs that were there. There were a lot of young people, all working and helping the economy of Tabulam.

I could go on and on, but I will be brief, because I'm very interested in hearing what the minister has to say about this. Again, the essence of this bill is that there was extensive community consultation done. The labelling laws in this country were unclear, and consumers in some ways were being misled. We are not banning imports. Obviously we're still very happy with the imports that we have. People are free to export to us as well. We had lots of consultation with the right bodies to make that clear to people who were exporting into our country. But the Australian consumer will benefit from this legislation and from the laws that we're passing as a government. The agricultural sector is crucial. We understand it. Agricultural prices have gone up since we've been in government—for a variety of reasons, not just because we're in government. We have developed a co-op centre of excellence in my region. We understand the magic of the co-op sector and that business model, and there are lots of exciting things happening there. It is a good bill, good for Australian consumers and good for the Australian agricultural sector. I commend the bill.

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

I thank the member for Page for an outstanding contribution. The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is part of a series of legislative changes required to fully implement reforms to country-of-origin labelling that were introduced by the coalition government in July 2016.

Australians want to support Australian farmers. Seventy-four per cent agreed it is important to be able to identify the country of origin of food, and 73 per cent agreed changes to country-of-origin labelling were required. We listened, acted and delivered on our election commitment.

These reforms mean that shoppers will soon find it easier to buy Australian food, with new country-of-origin labelling standards set to become compulsory. These reforms address longstanding consumer confusion and frustration about country-of-origin claims on food products. The reforms give consumers clearer and more meaningful origin information to support their buying preferences. It means that shoppers can easily choose clean, green, Aussie produce and support Australian farmers. All we have to do is give them the information. Our labelling changes require a bar graph showing how much of the product is Australian. We've already seen big and small businesses using the labels, including SPC, Nestle, Bulla and Woolworths. The county-of-origin labelling system has been voluntary since it was introduced in mid-2016 but from 1 July this year it will become compulsory. For businesses yet to include the country-of-origin standards on its labels four months might seem like a long time but it will soon be upon us.

The bill is needed because country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the Imported Food Control Act 1992 on 1 July 2018. The 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. They make it clear to importers that they are required to comply with the country-of-origin food labelling requirements. Imported products will continue to be required to be labelled with the country of origin—for example, 'product of Thailand' or 'made in Canada'—and would need to meet the new rules around 'made in' and 'packed in' claims.

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. They are not allowed to use the kangaroo symbol, as the product is not of Australian origin. This means that authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can maintain legislative control to enforce country-of-origin labelling for imported food to the border. The bill makes sure that this change will not impact the compliance arrangements for country-of-origin labelling for imported food at the border. Country-of-origin labelling will continue to be enforced by the Department of Agricultural and Water Resources under the Imported Food Inspection Scheme. So, in effect, it will be business as usual at the border for country-of-origin labelling for food.

I note the opposition's proposed second reading amendment, asserting that coalition government has failed to implement effectively policies to ensure Australian agriculture achieves its full potential. The assertion in this amendment could not be further from the truth. The coalition government is delivering for the hardworking men and women of Australia's farms and rural industries. We're investing in the future of agricultural by delivering on initiatives in the $4 billion Australian agricultural competitiveness white paper to help make our farm enterprises stronger and more resilient. We are creating the environment for improved prices for farm commodities, and the fruits of our labour is showing. Australia's total agricultural production was worth $63.4 billion in 2016-17, up 30 per cent since we came to office. The value of agricultural exports is up 27 per cent since we came to office, to nearly $49 billion.

We have recently signed the comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership and have delivered free trade agreements with three key Asian markets, China, Japan and Korea. These agreements help open the door to export more produce. We have also signed the Peru FTA. This means a 99.4 per cent cut in agricultural tariffs to Peru. In terms of the two-way trade, this agreement is predicted to be worth $435 million. These arrangements are game changers for Australian farmers. They help open the door to export more of Australia's clean, green, quality produce. We continue to work to negotiate new and improved market access into our key markets. We have also worked hard to secure the immediate and progressive removal of tariffs and non-tariff related barriers for our beef, pork, sheep, dairy, sugar, cotton, wool and grains industries. We successfully passed legislation to establish the Regional Investment Corporation functions and governance arrangements through the parliament on 6 February 2018. It will deliver farm business loans to farmers in a nationally consistent and efficient manner. We have also expanded by biosecurity funding by over 29 per cent since Labor left office, including up to $200 million as part of the agricultural competitiveness white paper.

By contrast, Labor have no vision or plan for agriculture and pretends to care for farmers, but all their actions the opposite. Only the coalition delivers for jobs in regional Australia, and this includes delivering on country-of-origin labelling. For many years, Australians have been demanding changes to origin claims on food labels, wanting them to be clearer, more meaningful and accurate. The coalition government has listened and delivered. I look forward to more business providing greater transparency about where food was made or packed and how much was made or packed. More Australians buying more Australian goods because of the country-of-origin requirements will mean more investment and jobs in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor 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 an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view of substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.