Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I also participated in this inquiry. I mean this genuinely, and I really wish I didn't have to say it, but, in the 10 years I've been in the Senate, this inquiry is the biggest waste of time and taxpayers' money that I have seen.

I want to note firstly that, very unusually, this inquiry didn't come as a reference inquiry. It should have, so that the Senate, including Senator McDonald's colleagues, would have voted on it. This came as a reference inquiry dressed up as a legislation committee inquiry. Senator McDonald put this through the legislation committee with no discussion or democratic process with other senators, and then she chaired it herself.

I said to the Labor Party only a month or so ago that I do not think it's good process in the Senate for governments to put up their own references inquiries and write their own reports. I participated as much as I could. It was a conga line of farmers, and I felt bad for the farmers, because I think some of them genuinely thought there was an opportunity to actually get regulatory change from this inquiry. It was an opportunity for Senator McDonald and the National Party to call on some of their rusted-on constituency and come to present evidence on how plant based foods are somehow a threat to their existence and to their livelihoods.

I admit today that I could tell there was some genuine anger and frustration from some of these stakeholders. But I felt very sad that they were drawn into some kind of culture war that was never going to deliver an outcome for them, because there was no substantive evidence presented at all that the labelling on plant based food is somehow undermining the red meat industry or animal agriculture—in fact, quite the opposite.

Details were laid out by a number of credible witnesses, including the CSIRO and others, that said that yes, the plant based sector has a very bright future. I think that's something we should all be celebrating, no matter our political colour, because it's jobs for farmers, it's Australian exports, it's gross national product and it's a whole bunch of other things, as well as providing choice and alternatives for people. But we also heard that the red meat industry, for example, also has massive growth protections in the years and decades to come.

This was nothing but a thinly disguised attack on the plant based food industry, and it made me very sad to see the Senate, and taxpayers' money, being used for this. It would be fine if we actually felt like somehow we were going to get some regulatory change around labelling, and I actually do think we need change around labelling, by the way. I think we need to have good seafood labelling, because we see imports of seafood and we don't know where the fish has come from, how it was caught, what gear was used, where it was landed or whether safe labour was attached to it. Our Australian fishery industries are competing with these products that we actually know very little about.

There are some very urgent labelling challenges if we want to look at that and look at changes to regulations and legislation, not to mention much better chain-of-custody labelling around Australian-made food as well. I've been on two inquiries before that have looked at labelling changes, and we've got some changes to our labels that show what's an Australian product and what's not, but they don't go anywhere near far enough.

Here we have an inquiry that is actually designed, in my opinion, to be set-up to attack the plant-based food industry. There are enormous opportunities for Australian farmers in plant-based food. Most farmers are diversifying. Yes, they might be running cattle or sheep but they're also potentially growing chickpeas or soybeans, or a whole range of other products. The example that was used by Senator McDonald that a vegan would be horrified if they were to find mince in their lasagne that they bought—and, yes, they would be—and that, therefore, someone who goes to buy a steak would be horrified that somehow they are eating a fake steak is a very poor comparison, because it is pretty obvious that plant foods are put in the forms of burgers. There are no alternatives to, for example, a steak, which is the example that was constantly raised throughout the Senate inquiry. You are probably likely to find almost as much vegetable protein and other matter, and a whole range of other additives, in meat burgers as you are in a vegetable burger. They are full of vegetables, as are a number of other meat products. Of course, when we got into that in the inquiry no-one wanted to talk about it.

It's no wonder that plant-based burgers are doing very well on the markets with the flexitarian consumers—people who want to reduce their consumption of meat but aren't vegan or vegetarian—because they actually taste like meat. They've got the same protein as meat. They have been very carefully designed to appeal to people who like meat. They provide choice. They come in the form of a burger and some other very clearly labelled packets. There is no way you could mistake a chicken fillet for an alternative plant-based product.

I agree that there potentially should be some changes around the use of animal logos on some of these products. Sometimes it was the farmers themselves who were saying that they want to see massive changes to labelling, or they do not want to see alternative meat products or plant-based meat products sold in the same isles as meat products because they accidentally picked up a vegan chicken vindaloo when they wanted a normal one. We never got any real evidence that this is a significant problem.

I'm not sure where it's going to go from here. The Greens have put in a very detailed dissenting report that talks about the definition of meat and other animal products; the consumer understanding of animal products; the regulatory framework, including Australian consumer law; and what would need to be done from here to actually help promote the opportunities for the protein sector across the board. This is something that I think Australians would be interested in, because they are increasingly eating plant-based products.

If we are going to feed the planet this century—we know we have a lot of challenges. We know plant-based foods will help provide the protein that we need, including in many Third World countries. It has been named by CSIRO and other people as one of the biggest investment opportunities for farmers and for investment companies wanting to get into exciting areas where there are opportunities to tackle environmental problems.

Of course, Meat & Livestock Australia and other groups recognise that they have to decarbonise. They recognise that consumers out there have concerns about the carbon footprint of their products. They are also, I hope, looking at what they can do to reduce their carbon footprints and reduce emissions from their sectors, because consumers, or customers, are voting with their feet. They are voting with their feet and they are seeking out alternative products.

I would say to senators, if they are interested in this, don't just read the government's own report into its own inquiry—which went through the legislation committee without any scrutiny from the Senate—please also read the Greens' dissenting report, which I think provides a much more balanced assessment of this topic.