Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

It is almost 30 years since Australia and New Zealand first brought together the closer economic relationship through ANZCERTA. Amongst a number of object­ives it had the admirable goal of developing trade between New Zealand and Australia, and not just developing trade but doing so under conditions of fair competition. I think Senator Brandis has fairly outlined the historical basis of that. This bill, the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011, does make some important definitional changes. For example, it tightens the definition of manufacturing, it clarifies what it means for something to be wholly produced in New Zealand and it clarifies that something cannot be considered of New Zealand origin simply because it has been packaged or labelled in New Zealand. Also, in the field of aquaculture, it makes it very clear that, if fish comes out of New Zealand waters and is processed in New Zealand, that clearly comes within the definitional criteria for the exemption of duties. I am grateful to the minister's office and to the department for providing clarification earlier today on some concerns I had. However, it is now timely to consider the CER more broadly: how it can be made to operate more fairly and, importantly, really work for the interests of Australian consumers.

The CER is said to be one of the world's most comprehensive, effective and multilat­erally compatible free trade agreements. Its scope is huge, covering nearly all trans-Tasman trade in goods, including agricultur­al products and services. However, its scope is so huge, so broad, that it goes beyond encouraging trade and beyond encouraging a closer economic relationship; it goes to preventing Australia taking action in its own right on issues that affect ordinary Austra­lians—and I see this as a fundamental issue of sovereignty. In fact, it reduces Australia's ability to make laws on food labelling.

While the CER rightly reduces trade barriers, it creates barriers of another kind: it creates barriers to consumers getting the information they deserve. Consumers have a right to know what country their food is coming from. The CER creates a barrier to this as it restricts the ability of the Australian government to make sure that manufacturers properly label their products so that Austra­lians know where their food is coming from. This is a barrier to consumers.

Let me give an example. In 2009, Senator Bob Brown, Senator Barnaby Joyce and I introduced legislation to require truth in labelling of palm oil. Palm oil is often labelled as a 'vegetable oil' in products. I wanted to ensure that consumers had accurate information to make an informed choice about whether or not they wanted to purchase or consume a product and whether it was sustainably produced palm oil, which Malaysia, I acknowledge, is doing more and more of. However, as part of the CER, under the Australia-New Zealand food treaty Australia cannot introduce amendments to food laws without effective consultation with New Zealand. I believe that is wrong. I am all for encouraging trade between Australia and New Zealand, but I am not for trading out our national sovereignty on an issue such as food labelling. Why should Australia needs permission from New Zealand to let Australians know what is in their food and where it came from?

I believe the current food-labelling laws in this country are woefully inadequate. They are bad for consumers and bad for our primary producers. If a product is only partly Australian, or partly from New Zealand for that matter, I believe the label should say so. Every time a food product is labelled as 'made in Australia' when in fact it is made largely of foreign ingredients, that is actually costing Australian farmers their jobs and misleading consumers. I do not see why having a closer economic relationship with New Zealand should mean that Australia cannot unilaterally legislate for its food labels to be accurate. I do not see why the closer economic relationship with New Zealand should create an obstacle to Austra­lian consumers. I do not see why it should create an obstacle to Australians being fully informed about the food they consume. I do not see why it should create an obstacle to Australians making fully informed choices about the products they buy and consume.

I do not want this to be misinterpreted as being against the CER with New Zealand. I strongly support it. But I believe that in this fundamental aspect it has simply gone too far or goes beyond the original intent of the CER. I support the encouraging of trade with our closest friend and ally, New Zealand. I cannot support having unfair obstacles in front of Australian consumers. For this reason I say now is the time to revisit the CER and ensure that it truly encourages free trade and fair trade between Australia and New Zealand, but not at the expense of Australian consumers getting the truth in labelling of the food they consume.