Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

The best way to ensure that packaged and processed food is of acceptable quality is to buy Australian. The issues around Patties Foods arose from initial media reports of a consignment of berries that was taken from Peru to China, washed in contaminated water and then exported to Australia. Some food processors say the reason that they did not buy Australian is that wages in this country are too high. That was the proposition that was advanced by the management of Patties Foods when this story first emerged. It was argued that Australian wages were too high to justify the use of Australian products.

If ever there were a case of confusing the issue of price with the question of cost then surely this is one. What this crisis for Patties Foods has demonstrated is that the price of labour per punnet or the price of labour per bag of berries is only a fraction of the cost of production. In the case of Patties Foods it has become quite clear that the cost of not buying Australian has been profound when it comes to the future of that company. We could ask the same in regard to the buyers of Nanna's frozen berries. I am sure they would point to the fact that at the last count 21 people have been reported with hepatitis and tuck shops at many schools across this nation have been stocked with poisoned berries.

The Chairman of Patties Foods has since this issue arose in fact discovered the real cost to the business of not buying Australian. In recent days he has in fact changed his argument. The argument now is that there is not sufficient capacity from Australian producers to supply his company. I find this an unusual argument. The fact that there is not sufficient capacity may well be true but that is a direct consequence of the policies that have been pursued by our food processors in not buying Australian, because we know of course capacity is developed as a consequence of people actually buying Australian product.

Consumers have a right to know exactly where their food comes from. That is why we have laws setting out what information should be placed on labels of packaged food. Consumers also have a right to expect that the contents of their food will not harm them. There is a responsibility here not just for the producers of food but also for the sellers of food and for the governments that regulate the production and distribution of food. The present system of food labelling clearly has not worked as it should. The frozen berries scare is a reminder of a number of lessons: that labelling needs to set out accurate and reliable information and that it needs to state the origins of food and where food has been processed. It is also the responsibility of regulators to be able to ensure the quality of food that is sold to the public.

The Prime Minister has indicated that the government is considering changes to the laws in regard to country-of-origin labelling. Country-of-origin labelling has been a long-festering issue in trade circles, particularly in periods of free trade agreements, because it is not always clear where a food originates. Labor welcome this commitment and we are more than happy to work with the government on this matter to ensure—for both consumers and producers—that we are able to get high-quality food in this country and that we are not placed in the situation where regulators force Australian-made out of business. We want to ensure that the necessary changes occur with proper consultation with manufacturing industries, other stakeholders as well as consumers.

Senator Milne, the response I am hearing from the Greens seems to suggest that this matter can be fixed almost immediately as if by waving a magic wand. There is no magic wand in this matter. In fact, an overly hasty, knee-jerk response may make a bad situation worse. It is important to ensure that labelling requirements are consistent, as the measures that are taken will cut across a whole range of products. It is also easy to ensure that labelling is clear and concise and actually means something. It is necessary to proceed in that context carefully and with appropriate consultation so that we do not have unintended consequences.

I say that on behalf of the 190,000 Australians who work in food-processing industries. They have rights as well, in this matter. We have to ensure that 'Australian made' means something and that it is a description that people can have confidence in. Placing an undue burden on food manufacturing may well have the perverse effect of sending food manufacturing offshore. I want to ensure that people can have confidence in the quality of their food and the quality of food processing in this country.

I say again that buying Australian is the best solution for such a situation, but it has to mean something in the way it is administered. The best way, however, is not to suggest as your starting point that the cost of labour in this country is too high and, as a consequence, you are obliged to import. We know that to be fallacious and, given the circumstances that have arisen with berries, we now understand what the cost to that company has been, not to mention the cost to the 21 people who have contracted hepatitis.

If labelling laws are to change, it is necessary to harmonise Commonwealth legislation with state and territory laws, and the government has to make sure that these arrangements are done in a nationally consistent way. The Minister for Agriculture proposed a diagrammatical approach to food labelling. The real concern for consumers here is that the final product may well not be any clearer, in terms of its source of origin, by as simple a device as that. However, it is an idea that is worth exploring. It is not clear whether replacing the generally informative labels with a pie chart or a similar diagram will, in fact, end up being a practical solution.

The solution to the food-labelling crisis will not be found in gimmicks, it will not be found in stunts and it will not be found by appearing in sound bites on the evening news. We have had a report that has been produced by parliamentary committees but it appears to have had little attention by government. We have had an issue that has been developed for some time in this parliament without any real progress by governments. The government has neglected biosecurity as it has neglected manufacturing, more generally.

The frozen berry scare has demonstrated that the abolition of the post of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity was an ill-judged decision. The government should urgently conclude its review of the biosecurity risk import assessment, which is now a year overdue. It is simply not good enough to abandon the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program, which was initiated by the previous government. It has become a victim of yet another cost-cutting device by this government. The Buy Australian at Home and Abroad campaign allowed people to be encouraged to buy Australian, which is how we develop capacity and how we develop the skills necessary in Australia. We want to make sure that the opportunities for Australian industry to build skills and produce markets are the way in which we can most effectively help in developing Australian industry.

This government has ripped $82 million from Australian participation plans, which was a key pillar of the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad suite of measures. (Time expired)