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

I would like to say a few words on the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. At present fish sold for immediate consumption in restaurants, fish-and-chip shops or other retailers is exempt from the country of origin labelling requirements. This bill would amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to remove that exemption. Labor supports the intent of this bill. However, we cannot support the bill in its current form without changes to address some technical concerns that are being brought to our attention by the government and which, in terms of our period in office, are well understood. I will outline those shortly.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that there is widespread support in Australia for clearer labelling of the origins of food. That was evident earlier this year when cases of hepatitis A from suspected food contamination were reported. Since then, country of origin labelling has become associated in the minds of many people with a guaranteed safety in food. The origin label alone, of course, cannot provide such a guarantee. But buying Australian—and I want to emphasise this—is the best way to secure quality food. Anyone who knows me is aware that for many years I have worn a lapel pin with the Australian Made logo on it. I am very proud to be an advocate of buying Australian. I do not do so merely as a token of support for local industry or because I believe that politicians should spread the buy-Australian message. I wear it to remind people that buying Australian made is basic economic good sense.

That does not mean that we exclude foreign products. And it is certainly not about just propping up inefficient Australian firms. In the case of fish labelling, for example, the Senate committee inquiry into this bill heard that around 70 per cent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported and that the local industry would be unable to meet the demand if the foreign products were not available. So, it is not about featherbedding local industries. On the contrary, it is about recognising that the purchasing decisions we make matter, whether as individuals, as firms or as governments. It is about giving consumers the right information so they can make informed decisions. It is about building the capacity of Australian industry to ensure that the options are actually available. The desire of consumers to know where their food has come from is understandable—I would have thought unargued, and it should be unargued. It is entirely reasonable that Australians be provided with clear information about the country of origin of their food. They should have confidence that the food they are eating is safe and free from dangerous contamination. This was acknowledged by policy makers well before the spate of publicity that was prompted by the hepatitis A cases. In 2011, when Labor was in office, an inquiry was chaired by the former health minister, Dr Neal Blewett. It delivered the report Labelling logic, which set out a comprehensive policy on food labelling. That report recommended:

That Australia's existing mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirements for food be maintained and be extended to cover all primary food products for retail sale.

The report also noted that there were 'a few inexplicable primary product exceptions, and the panel believes the loophole should be closed'. The labelling logic—to use the report's phrase—is the policy underpinning the bill, now before the Senate.

This is not about excluding foreign seafood from the market, nor is the measure designed to protect local producers. Rather, it is about providing Australians with information to help them make informed choices about the food they consume. That is what I understand this bill seeks to do. However, there are technical concerns. The bill was referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Labor also accepts that the regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, will need to work closely with the states and territories—which are responsible for enforcing compliance with the act—and with the industry to develop an appropriate standard.

If such an arrangement can be reached, Labor will be willing to work with the crossbench and the government to develop an appropriate legislative or regulatory solution. But let us be realistic about it: this is a complex regulatory area and there are a lot of stakeholders to consider. When you contemplate changes you cannot just put forward a proposition that is unworkable. You have to get all the right players in the room. We have to make sure that the new measures have the effect of providing consumers with information, so they can make informed decisions without unduly damaging Australian industry or Australian jobs. It is not about creating additional layers of complexity, which is already a very complex area of law.

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, as you know, the drafting of legislation that will be correctly implemented and the desired policy are not necessarily the same exercise. Sometimes it is relatively simple to reach a decision on policy but it is much more difficult to find the necessary regulatory environment to produce the correct policy outcome. That typically has been the experience in the food-labelling area. The complexities are acknowledged in the Senate committee report on this matter. It says:

… the committee notes that the Commonwealth has limited legislative power in the area of food regulation, which would constrain the effectiveness of the bill in isolation. Complex jurisdictional arrangements are in place, and although standards may be developed by FSANZ, enforcement would rely on legislative action by the states and territories. …

It would be preferable to get state and territory support before progressing reforms to ensure the changes meet jurisdictional requirements.

The policy goal, which I believe would now find broad agreement on both sides of the chamber and on the crossbenchers, and in the wider community, is clear enough. It is the labelling logic prescribed by the Blewett inquiry. That goal was acknowledged, again, as recently as last month by the Minister for Agriculture. He said:

Australian consumers have made it clear they want unambiguous and more consistent country of origin food labelling, so they can make more informed choices about the food they buy,

I understand the minister and his colleagues are conducting consultations prior to announcing the government's own proposals for changes to the labelling laws later this year. It must be said that the government had to be prodded into action on this matter.