John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, I inform you—and this might be advantageous to the whips—that I will not be speaking for 20 minutes; I will not require that much time. I am 100 per cent on board with Senator Xenophon's motive for this bill, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015: to bring in a proper labelling system simply to let Australians know what they are buying, what they are eating and where it comes from.

As I said before in this place, I have been campaigning for 20 years for country-of-origin labelling, since I was a pig farmer and the then Hawke Labor government allowed the importing of pig meat from places such as Canada and Denmark. The pig meat was being brought here, processed into ham and labelled 'manufactured in Australia' and 'product of Australia'. It was misleading and very, very damaging to the pig industry, which I was part of at the time.

I was part of the inquiry into seafood labelling carried out by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. We went to the Northern Territory, where these laws have been brought in and so the people in the Northern Territory know whether they are eating imported fish or locally produced fish. Since those laws were instigated in the Northern Territory—remembering that roughly 70 per cent of the seafood consumed in Australia is imported—consumption of Australian fish has risen 70 per cent. It is amazing. Australian people are prepared to pay more for Australian product, and I do not blame them.

We learnt as well about the misleading labelling and naming of companies. We informed the ACCC about Australis Barramundi, 'barramundi' being the great Aboriginal name for that very popular and good-tasting fish. With the name Australis Barramundi, you would think, 'Yes, that would be barramundi from Australia.' In fact, it is an American owned company, and the barramundi, as they call it, is farmed in Vietnam. The ACCC are actually looking at that now.

There is some more confusing labelling. We reported a company that was selling a product called Victoria Honey. Now, I would not blame anyone who is in this chamber for thinking, 'Victoria honey is of course honey produced in Victoria by the beekeepers there.' In fact, it was corn syrup imported from Turkey. They copped a fine of $10½ thousand dollars, which I think is a bit light, and had to remove the product from the shelves. That is misleading. It is false. It is wrong to put labels with such information on products to confuse or mislead the Australian public, hence the actions of the ACCC.

I have been a staunch campaigner for simply telling the truth to the Australian people, for transparency in labelling, letting them know what they are buying. As I said, I am 100 per cent onside when it comes to the sentiment of this bill, with what Senator Xenophon is trying to achieve here. We do not want to see extra costs put on businesses. In the Northern Territory, we took the hotels and the restaurant chains through what it was costing them to change their menus. They said they had to change them every year or so anyway. It was not a big problem. It was simply 'imported' or 'Australian'.

Where I do have a problem with the bill is that it cannot do what Senator Xenophon is trying to do. Let me explain. No jurisdiction can direct FSANZ to develop a standard; they can only ask for a review of an existing standard. So we cannot direct FSANZ to bring in a standard. We can only ask for it. All food standards must be approved with the consensus of the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. That is a fact. FSANZ cannot approve standards; they can only provide advice to the forum.

This is the most important issue and that is why I cannot support the bill, although I sympathise with Senator Xenophon and I support the whole principle behind it. But food standards cannot be legislated. That is our law. This bill, if passed, will breach Australia's obligations under the agreement on joint food standards between the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand. Implementation of a standard made pursuant to proposed section 16A would be inconsistent with part 3 of the FSANZ Act. It would have the effect of removing the participation of the ministerial council from the process of developing a standard, which is required by article 4(6) of the treaty. The proposed bill therefore appears inconsistent with article 5(3) of the treaty, which obliges Australia not to establish food standards other than in accordance with the treaty.

So there is a legislative problems with the bill. I completely agree with what Senator Xenophon is trying to achieve here. I want to see transparent, honest labelling. I want to see appropriate information about food delivered to the Australian consumer. That is why we in government are rapidly progressing work on country-of-origin labelling. I have been to forums in Armidale and Tweed Heads in the last couple of weeks. At those forums we have had businesspeople, people in the industry and people working in restaurants coming forward to give their ideas on how we should go about putting this whole plan together—of course we will have to work with the states as well—so that consumers can clearly see what they are buying. We need to improve on the hidden fine print on the back of the packet of biscuits that no-one can read unless they have the best eyes in the world. We need bigger print, we need clear labelling, maybe a map of Australia—whatever the outcome might be—so that people know what they are buying. They should know whether they are buying imported food, Australian grown and processed food or a blend. As Senator Xenophon has said, there is nothing in WTO regulations condemning that sort of activity. There is nothing wrong with telling people the truth about what they are about to eat. They are paying for the product, they are paying for the food, so they deserve to know where it was grown, where it was processed and where it comes from.

In winding up, I totally support the sentiment of Senator Xenophon—100 per cent. But, because of the way the laws are, sadly I cannot support the bill. There will have to be changes later on. I am sure this vital issue will be progressed. As a member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, I can say that we are all as one in supporting such changes. Senator Sterle did a great job chairing the inquiry, especially when we were in Darwin. The information of the witnesses who came forward was a huge education for me—as with all Senate inquiries. You go into an inquiry knowing little or nothing about an issue, but the Australian people come forward and educate you.

In summary, I agree with Senator Xenophon 100 per cent on what he is trying to achieve here. Sadly, the way the bill is drafted—and the regulations and the laws and the agreements and treaties with New Zealand—means I cannot vote for it. That is most unfortunate. What we can do is work through on this issue and—

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

We do have agreements, Senator Xenophon, and we must honour them. We have had many discussions with you. Colleagues of mine have discussed this with you in detail, explaining our situation—