Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I stand here today to talk about this bill. The title of the dissenting report by Senator Xenophon and the Australian Greens into this bill—'Oils ain't oils'—says it all, and I must give Senator Xenophon credit for it. And it is true, because palm oil is not just a vegetable oil. If you read food packaging today you would believe it is just a vegetable oil. Well, we do not believe it is just a vegetable oil, nor do a large number of Australians. And this is at the heart of this particular bill. Because we do not believe it is just a vegetable oil, we believe that needs to be labelled on the packet so that people have choice.

This bill aims to provide consumers with information to make an informed choice about the products they choose to buy and consume. Most people probably do not know that 50 per cent of products on supermarket shelves—from household products to food items to cosmetics—contain vegetable oil. Because that is not labelled, consumers cannot look at the packet and know that they are buying a product that contains palm oil. They think they are just buying an innocuous product called vegetable oil. So the aim of this bill is to enable consumers to have that choice.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why we want consumers to have that choice. We are severely concerned about the impact that some forms of palm oil have on biodiversity, rainforests and, therefore, orangutans. It has been calculated that an orangutan dies every two hours in the clearing of rainforest for palm plantations. Not all palm oil is from plantations where rainforest has been cleared, but a lot is. There is a very strong connection between the clearing of rainforest and palm oil plantations.

Efforts are being made to promote sustainable palm oil but, at the moment, unfortunately there is not an accurate tracking system and it cannot be guaranteed that palm oil is sustainability produced. That is why Senator Xenophon will later talk in more detail about the amendments that we have proposed to this bill. Those amend­ments were developed after this bill went to a committee inquiry—and I am sure Senator Moore will also talk about that inquiry. We took a lot of evidence from witnesses who supported this bill very strongly and from witnesses who did not—and I will go into that in a little more detail shortly. Because of the relatively short time frame we were unable to have a large number of witnesses, but we did have two days of hearings and we gathered quite a lot of evidence.

Another important point raised was the health outcomes from the saturated fats in palm oil. Under the current food labelling regulations, palm oil can be labelled as just a vegetable oil. We do not believe this gives consumers enough choice. They do not know whether that means sunflower oil, just plain vegetable oil, cotton seed oil, soya bean oil or, in fact, palm oil. The provisions of this bill, we know, were supported by COAG and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council review on food labelling law and policy, commonly known as the Blewett review instead of that mouthful. To remind senators of their recommendation, they said that where sugars, fats or vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the term 'added sugars, added fats and/or added vegetable oils' should be used in the ingredients list as the generic term, followed by a bracketed list—for example, 'Added sugars: fructose, glucose syrup or honey' or 'Added fats: palm oil, milk fat, vegetable oils, sunflower or palm oil'. In other words, this is picking up on a recommendation from the Blewett review.

I know we will hear it argued in this chamber that we need to wait—you have to give time for the government to consider the Blewett review. I have been in this chamber for six years. Every time issues about labelling have come up I have been told: 'You have to give this time, Senator. It takes time to consult the Australian community. It takes time to consult with the states and territories.' Well, I am sorry, but you have run out of time. It is time that we made a move and put this amendment in place.

I remember when I was seated over there on the opposition bench, arguing this case about labelling foods. I remember when I was seated over there arguing the case for better labelling laws. I have sat in estimates for six years, questioning FSANZ about what they are doing about labelling, and we have had no action. It is time now that we had some action. I am very pleased to hear the coalition say that they are going to support this particular bill, because it is a very important move in the right direction. It is about giving consumers choice, labelling food products so people know what they are buying. They can go to the supermarket, pick up a packet of biscuits, look at whether it has palm oil or not and make a choice. They may make the choice that they want to buy it. They also may make a different choice. The key thing here is that they will have the choice. Hopefully, that choice can drive change, because this is also about enabling people to make a choice on what they buy and about trying to drive some change with the choices consumers make.

We had a very good public response to the inquiry on this issue. There were 448 submissions received for the previous inquiry—this was carried out in two stages because of the election—and 48 more received after the election. There was a petition tabled around this issue with 163,917 Australians asking for changes to our labelling laws and to label for palm oil.

I point out that this is not a boycott of palm oil. We did not call for a boycott of palm oil. We have not asked for a ban on palm oil. We are simply asking for products that contain palm oil to be labelled so that people can make a very clearly informed choice. It is what Australians have been asking for. We believe these changes are eminently sensible changes. We believe that this should be the start—and maybe that is what scares the government—of ensuring consumers can read labels and get intelligible information off those labels so that they can make an informed choice.

Do you know that each year Australians consume an average of 10 kilos of palm oil each? But they do not know that they are doing it. Some people may want to do it but, I tell you what: I do not. I know lots of people that do not. But at this stage I do not have a choice. I know some products that contain it and I avoid those, but there are dozens of products where I do not know if they contain palm oil. I want to be able to make that choice. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have indicated they want to make that choice.

This is an important bill. It is an important milestone for labelling products and for giving consumers a choice. And do not forget that there are orangutans that will continue to survive by you making this choice, by passing this bill. Hopefully it means that in the future an orangutan will not die every two hours as a result of clearing rainforests for palm oil plantations. This is not a ban. It is not a boycott. It is enabling people to make choices about what they buy and what they eat. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issues around palm oil have become quite well-known to the members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. I take the point that until we had the series of references to our committee there was not a great deal of knowledge. We had seen some information. Naturally, we had seen the large campaign by the Zoos Australia network. I want to particularly commend in this contribution the extraordinary, educative role that Zoos Australia at their Taronga, Perth and Melbourne outlets have run to raise awareness of environmental issues that have been put forward as part of the debate.

I think all of us have seen the range of extraordinarily cute postcards with a particularly fetching orangutan. I have to admit I have forgotten the name of the orangutan, but it was given a name and people knew it. It was a very personal, very confronting process in raising the issues of the need to save wildlife, the concerns of rainforest deforestation and the ongoing agricultural production in Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries. This was a particularly important part of the evidence we received.

I want to put on record the range of information we received from people who attended zoos to see what was going on. I also want to pay credit to a young woman who came to our public hearing. Her name is Chloe Nicolosi. She came along because she had a particular view, after going to the zoo, on saving the orangutan. I want to commend the role that Chloe played, because she had the courage to put forward the issue and also the courage to work with her friends at school and her local community to raise awareness, which we all need to have, about wildlife protection—and particularly, in this case, the protection of the orangutan through the Don't Palm Us Off campaign.

I know Senator Siewert mentioned that in her contribution, and I do not think anyone who was at our hearing was unaware of the genuine need to look at these issues and to come up with some response across the world. Whether—and this is a very important point—the passing of this legislation is actually the best way of doing that is a debate for this chamber. But the important thing is that the discussion must happen and that environmental protection is something that the Australian community find inter­esting and that they should know about.

In our recommendations at the end of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report, we stated that, throughout the whole process, we had evidence from a range of organisations, individuals and people on the issues of health, effective production, labelling and environment protection. But, as we said in the concluding elements of our report, for every argument that we received there was a corresponding argument for the other side. I know that a is a common situation in this place when we are taking forward important issues. Nonetheless, the committee felt that we had to put on record that in this inquiry you could go through and compare the arguments were raised and the contrasting issues. What was important was that people wanted to have their say and that they had concerns. As Senator Siewert has said, the issues of food labelling are important to our community and are becom­ing more so. I will go on to talk about the various issues of the current legislation.

One of the more interesting aspects of the evidence received was that people wanted clear labelling. I take that point; I am one of those people who tries to read extensively the contents of the products that I am purchasing. It is not that easy when you are looking at grapes, but, nonetheless, when you are going through the supermarket lanes and looking at the range of options before you, you see that a lot of progress has been made to date.

I know that Senator Siewert has talked about her frustration with the time that these changes take, and there is an element of truth in that. To go through a process of change does take time. But, for food products in Australia—and New Zealand, but I am talking about Australia in particular at the moment—there is much more interest in and much more availability of food labelling on packaging. Sometimes—and this is my own point, not taken up in this piece of legislation—it is almost impossible because trying to look at that the small print on a food product is a challenge in itself. Apart from that, there has been progress.

One of the interesting pieces of evidence was that people actually say that labelling is important to them. People say they want to have clear labelling of content. But does it change their purchasing processes? We had evidence to our inquiry that there are surveys from major chains on this point. Yes, people do want access to food labelling, and that is their right. But I think there needs to be much more work done in the Australian community on looking at the effectiveness of the progress in people's patterns of purchase and whether they understand clearly what the need for change is. Certainly evidence we received form the Heart Foundation and various agencies was particularly clear about the health impacts of this legislation proposal—we need to have clear labelling in terms of health. That was an issue that I think we in this place need to work on with our communities.

The Preventive Health Agency that the government has developed needs to make sure that the full message is known, as is being demanded by this legislation, about the issues of palm oil. We had significant evidence about the issues around palm oil—its level of fat and the degree of harm in that fat. That came out consistently in evidence from people looking at the health impacts—that palm oil is a substance that can have particular health impacts. That was raised, and I draw attention to the ongoing work of the Heart Foundation in this matter. That is an issue that we need to consider. The evidence that came to us in our committee looked mainly at health aspects, the orangutan link and environmental responsibilities.

We took some time in the committee to look at the current food protection system in Australia. It is not an easy one. As Senator Siewert has said, on many occasions in our Senate estimates and community affairs committee, and also in some debate in this place, we have gone through the way that the current food protection system works. The core aspect of our current food protection system is that it is a cooperative arrangement involving the states and territories of our country. It is not a federal process. In fact, it is clearly defined that it is not a federal role to go in over the top and direct. This process works through the ministerial councils to ensure that there is agreement on and commitment to our food labelling and food protection processes—understanding that the core responsibility is with the states but that, naturally, the federal agencies have a role in coordinating and ensuring that there is understanding.

We take that situation extraordinarily seriously, and we had evidence from a number of state governments who put forward their view that they strongly believe that, in whatever process we have, recom­mendations are able to go through the minis­terial council process so they are worked through effectively and so that the legislation that feeds out—possibly a wrong choice of verb there, considering the issue we are talking about!—of the decisions that are made on food standards are then implemented through legislation at the state level. The issue that we have with federal intervention of this type—done for the very best purposes, I strongly believe—is: how are we actually going to make it work and maintain the cooperative and effective arrangements that we have?

The ministerial council is made up of ministers from each state and territory—absolutely—the Commonwealth and, because of a particular cross-country arrange­ment, with our friends from New Zealand. I suppose, considering the discus­sion we had recently, I should call them our family members from New Zealand. It is important that we have that link through Food Standards Australia New Zealand, which is the independent statutory authority set up by the Australian government under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

This cooperative arrangement in our legislation has the role of developing and maintaining the food standards which make up the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. That document is freely available and at times in our community affairs process we have turned to that to find out exactly what is agreed in our current process. The code itself—I know this is something people have some difficulties with—has no legal effect in its own right. The Food Regulation Agreement between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth provides that the states and territories will adopt or incorporate into state or territory law the standard which FSANZ develops. I know Senator Siewert has expressed her frustration with this process, but it is the way that we, not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, can reach an agreement which means that we have the best engagement and the opportunity to ensure that there is consistency and involvement in the process. In the first day of evidence in the community affairs inquiry Mr Steve McCutcheon, the Chief Executive Officer of FSANZ, made the point on record:

I think in the context of providing more information to consumers through food labels that is very much around health and safety, and the objectives of our act make that clear. Whatever mechanism would be taken to give effect to the objectives of this bill—

the bill we are talking about today—

I think we would probably struggle to meet the benefit-cost test that would be applied under the Council of Australian Governments best practice regulation guidelines, in terms of the cost that would be imposed on industry to put in place the systems that would be required to underpin label statements, and then the benefits of that for the consumers who were interested in that information.

I draw people's attention to the full submission of FSANZ if they want to look at all the actions, but that statement encapsu­lates, for me, the way the current system works—it actually draws in the states and territories and then it works with the various stakeholders, for whom there are public consultation processes to ensure that we have agreement. It does take time, and that is a point that we should all consider in looking to the future, but we need to work within the system we have to come up with the best possible arrangement.

In working within this process our committee has adopted a continuing question­ing model, and that is extra­ordinar­ily important to ensure that people in the community know that their voices are able to be put into this process, which goes back into government to ensure that we have a system that is public and transparent. We use that term all the time—it needs to be transparent so people understand the way things operate and can see what the objectives of the process are.

The object of the FSANZ Act is to ensure a high standard of public health protection throughout Australia and New Zealand by means of the establishment and operation of a joint body to be known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand. FSANZ has four goals: to achieve a high degree of consumer confidence in the quality and safety of food produced, processed, sold or exported from Australia or New Zealand; to be an effective, transparent and accountable regulatory framework within which the food industry can work efficiently; to provide adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices; and to establish common rules for both countries and promote consistency between domestic and international food regulatory measures without reducing the safeguards applying to public health and consumer protection. The core aspects are health, consumer protection, public health and safety.

There was some discussion in the community affairs committee about whether the palm oil issue fell into any of these areas. Once again, as I said earlier, for every argument that was put up there was a contradictory argument, but I tended to fall on the side of saying that palm oil as a health matter should be further considered through our process. Most people in this place, and certainly the community affairs committee, are aware of the extensive review of this area led by former health minister Neal Blewett. That review brought down its report earlier this year. There was a large number of recommendations, and I truly hope that many people who are interested in this area have taken the time to look at the Blewett report, which is a significant document, and the large number of recommendations.

One of the recommendations of the report, which has been referred to cabinet for consideration—because it is a very important area and an important document—is that there should be consideration of palm oil labelling being identified in its own right. I was able to look at some of the submis­sions—many of the people who came to the community affairs committee had also made submissions through the Blewett process—and look at the issue of fat in palm oil. That was the argument Dr Blewett took up in his recommendations, and certainly when we were pulling together the community affairs committee report in response to Senator Xenophon's bill and Senator Brown's bill, we said that, as there had been this fulsome—many people involved in that review would say extremely fulsome—review of our system conducted under Neal Blewett and those recommendations were being considered by Cabinet, that would be the appropriate way to move forward on the issue. Where we go is then a decision for this place.

It is important that the community understand that this has not been an empty space; that the government has taken seriously its responsibilities to ensure that we maintain the system that I have read out, that is enshrined in the act—looking at the transparency, looking at the responsibilities around public health and accountability. The government has certainly not moved away from its responsibility to keep that system as an effective and worthy process within our country. We have had this national review and we are working through the process. We need to ensure that the health issues raised by the community through our committee are taken up in our food standards process. There was further discussion of whether, at this stage in our food regulation program, the issues of environmental protection—and those issues are absolutely important and worthy and no-one says they should not be considered—are taken up by the various terms in the current legislation that I have already put into the debate today. That was something that many consumers felt needed to be put forward, and they brought that information to our committee. But I think it is something that needs more consideration.

We on the community affairs committee took good evidence from retailers and producers and also industry groups on voluntary labelling of products. The content for health purposes was spelt out in one area, but there was also some kind of sticker or promotional agreement that talked about the environmental processes. This was to take these concerns to the market so that people could see, when making their choices about which products to buy, if it was going through the round table process. There is a round table process, to which Senator Siewert referred, on environmental sustainability—I will not have time to go into that in this contribution, but I feel sure that we will have more discussions around this issue in the future. The labelling would make that clearly known. People could then read on a product that it had palm oil in it—under the process that will be considered in the future—and whether the palm oil being used was sustainably produced. That is already used in many areas now to grab public attention and make them aware of these differences between products.

From the perspective of the community affairs committee, it was an extraordinarily valuable exercise to see that these things were considered so important by so many people in our community and that people wanted to know about how the system for food regulation worked. People wanted to have their say in the process, but they also said that they wanted to know what they would be able to do next, after this labelling is actually agreed, and I think that is something for further discussion in this place.

I think it is important to put on the record that I think our system works. Engaging effectively with the states and stakeholders and so making sure that people understand what is going on is the best possible way to ensure food safety and awareness in our community.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In deference to time, I will be brief. The coalition is going to support this bill and the amendments proposed to it which, we believe, substantially improve the bill as initially proposed. With all due respect to Senator Moore, while I found the speech we just heard very informative about food standards and about process, if I had to point to a reason why this bill needs to be passed, it would be that speech. There are many processes. They go on for a long time. As Senator Siewert outlined, this has been proposed for many years. But there has been no action. So the coalition, in supporting this bill, is simply saying consumers have the right to know what is in the food and goods they purchase. We believe this will improve consumers' ability to make informed choices.

I will speak very briefly when the amendments are proposed to indicate that we do support the amendments because we think that it is more appropriate to have these provisions in the competition and consumer law. We believe we already have a frame­work there, with an existing regulator. That is the place where we try to guarantee consumers rights and provide guarantees to consumers that what they think is in the products they purchase is indeed in those products.

No-one that I know dislikes orangutans. I am an animal lover myself. Some of the numbers that have been put by some of the proponents of this bill about the clearing of forests for palm oil and the impact upon orangutans are contested; I think I should state that. Clearly I do not think that if people disagree with those numbers it should be implied in any way that they do not like orangutans any less than the proponents of this. This is about people actually knowing what is in the goods that they purchase, particularly in the food they eat.

I will finish on this brief point. I would not want—and I am not saying this has happened so far—this issue to become a vilification of farmers in these parts of the world. People clearing land to grow produce which they sell, trade or eat has been quite important over the course of human history, and the people who do this are actually quite poor. While the proponents have not suggested this, I think we do need to be careful because there may be an impact on people from this. But I do not think that giving more information to consumers is in any way a bad thing. And that is the reason that the coalition is supporting this legislation as, hopefully, to be amended.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise to make a contribution in this debate on the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2010. Senator Minchin said in his valedictory speech a few nights ago that he had little imagined when he came to Canberra that he would spend so much time discussing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. I might say, in a similar vein, that I had no idea when I was elected to the Senate that I would be addressing this place on the subject of palm oil. But such is life.

As it happens, this is a subject that has come to be of interest to me, both because of work I did previously in the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, considering the questions of development, poverty and security in the Pacific. That is a constellation of issues that continues to be of interest to me with my defence responsibilities. And this is an aspect of this debate that I will return to.

Senator Xenophon's private member's bill seeks to amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to require Food Standards Australia New Zealand to develop and approve mandatory labelling standards which would require all food producers and manufacturers and distributors of food to label all products that contain palm oil. The bill also requires that where what is described as 'certified sustainable palm oil' is used, this is to be labelled 'CS palm oil' to indicate its sustainable origins. The purpose of this bill is therefore to require the mandatory labelling of palm oil and to encourage the use of palm oil from sus­tainable sources. Let me say at the outset that I recognise Senator Xenophon's good intentions in presenting this bill. He is genuinely concerned about the threat that the destruction of native rainforest habitat in Indonesia for palm oil plantations poses to wildlife, particularly the orangutan. The orangutan is currently threatened with extinction and this is an emotive issue that has gained quite a bit of traction in the broader community. Senator Xenophon believes that this bill will give Australian consumers the ability to choose whether or not to buy products which contain palm oil and that it will also reward those who produce palm oil in a sustainable way by the means of the CS palm oil label to which I referred.

I share—indeed, the government shares—Senator Xenophon's concerns about environmental degradation and unsustainable agricultural practices, whether they be found in Indonesia or anywhere else in our region. We are all aware of the acute danger posed by uncontrolled land clearance, whether it be for palm oil plantations or for any other purpose—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Feeney keeps referring to this as simply my bill. It is a bill moved jointly with Senator Brown. I think the record should be corrected.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator Xenophon, but I am sure the senator will take your comments into account.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I think that is a fine reflection on Senator Xenophon's resolve to share the credit for this endeavour. Returning to the subject, we are all aware of the dangers of uncontrolled land clearance, whether it be in Indonesia or anywhere else in our region, and it is an issue of signal importance that legislators in this parliament should be mindful of, because it is having increasing and devastating effects on Pacific Island nations in particular.

In February 2007, the United Nations Environment Program produced a report titled The last stand of the orangutan. According to the report, the natural forests of Sumatra and Borneo are being cleared at such a fast rate that they will be totally destroyed by 2022. These forests are the last surviving habitat for the orangutan and for other endangered species such as the Sumatran rhino and the Sumatran tiger. The clearing of rainforest for palm oil plantations is also very harmful in terms of its impact on climate change. When rainforests are drained and cleared to make way for palm oil plantations, their peat-filled soils dry out and release large amounts of methane. Methane is, of course, a greenhouse gas that is many times more dangerous than carbon dioxide in terms of its global warming impact. Peat soils are highly susceptible to long-burning fires that emit large quantities of carbon. Illegally-lit peatland fires in Borneo have for many years now been identified as one of the largest global sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

For all of these reasons, our regional development aid program has a very strong focus on supporting sustainable agricultural practices. AusAID and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research spent over $100 million a year on this work, with over 200 bilateral projects in developing countries across the Asia-Pacific region. I think that really does tell the story about a set of issues that are and should continue to be of great importance to all of us.

The question about this bill, then, is not intentions but whether it will actually help to achieve its objectives—objectives which, I think, all sides of this Senate are in agreement on. The question is whether this bill might have unforeseen harmful conse­quences. This bill seeks to use the food standards regime to achieve an objective which is not related to food standards. That is, in and of itself, a public policy question we should deliberate on carefully. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about the small amounts of palm oil which are commonly used in many processed foods. Senator Xenophon wants foods labelled to show the presence of palm oil not because palm oil is in itself hazardous but because he is trying to achieve an environmental purpose. The purpose of food standards law is to protect consumers against potentially hazardous foods and to allow them to make informed choices about what they and their families eat. It is essentially a health law. To use the food standards law to achieve an environ­mental objective—in this case an environ­mental objective in one or more countries—sets a potentially dangerous precedent, and this Senate should understand full well what it is about to embark upon.

The bill pre-empts a government response to the recommendations of the Blewett food labelling review. Recommendation 12 of that review recommends, on public health grounds, the labelling of all types of saturated fats, which would include palm oil. Of course, when the issue of saturated fats in foods is considered from a health point of view, what is relevant is the level of such fats in any given product. Senator Xenophon's bill, on the other hand, requires that palm oil must be listed as an ingredient regardless of the amount used in a food product or used to produce that food product. This will be seen in the broader food industry as imposing an unreasonable burden on food producers, particularly those who use only very small amounts of palm oil in their products.

There is a further issue of consideration here and, in reflecting on it, I note that in a recent visit to the Solomon Islands I had the opportunity to visit some palm oil plantations and to make some preliminary observations about how they came to be there. The Solomon Islands is a country that is our immediate neighbour, and it is a country that is of signal importance to this country. It is a country that we have been working with since 2003 through the RAMSI program—the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. That is a whole-of-government exercise that has been a focus for government since 2003. It is a sad matter of fact that it is estimated that by something like 2015 the once-enormous forest resources of the Solomon Islands will be exhausted. The deforestation, the unsustainable logging that has wrought such extraordinary destruction in that country, has continued unabated since the 1980s. It means that the forest resources of that country, which are, I think, at present its greatest earner, will soon be lost for the foreseeable future. In considering this enormous environmental destruction, we also must consider the fact that countries like the Solomon Islands—and this is unfortunately typical of many Pacific Island nations—are struggling financially, and have large and increasingly urbanised populations that endure very high levels of unemployment. That systemic unemploy­ment in their urban landscapes has become one of several factors that have often led to dangerous security implications for those countries and those countries' governments.

I think we would all imagine that, in a country like the Solomon Islands, palm oil production and palm oil plantations may offer one industry which the islands can engage in and embrace and which can produce valuable employment and financial opportunities. I am very concerned that, as we ventilate these issues and consider this bill and these sorts of measures, we do not prevent poor countries that have already experienced dramatic levels of deforestation from pursuing legitimate and important economic opportunities. Those are things Australia wants for countries like the Solomon Islands; those are of course things that the Solomon Islands government wants to pursue.

As we pursue these questions about palm oil, let's remember—as Senator Ryan mentioned briefly—that palm oil is not itself an intrinsically destructive product. It is often produced by economies that are poor, struggling and need development oppor­tunities. If we pursue a course of action that has us vilify the food in its entirety, then we will not be doing orangutans a service insomuch as we will be destroying the economic opportunities of poor and developing economies.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say at the outset that the government fully understands the intention and motivation behind Senator Xenophon and Senator Bob Brown's bill. We absolutely understand the widespread community concern about the impact of deforestation on the orangutan population and the importance of consumers being well informed about the food they buy and consume. That is evident in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report. Interestingly, the majority report raised some of the concerns that I will raise now. The first principle this chamber needs to understand is that, I think, there is total unanimity around this chamber about the concern about the impact of deforestation on the orangutan population.

While we do recognise the intent and the community interest in the bill, we are concerned that the bill in its current form, including amendments that may be put in front of us today, may not be the best way to address those issues. The government has already processes in train with respect to food-labelling reform. I acknowledge that Senator Siewert in her contribution today indicated that she was frustrated with the time that that has taken.

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

Absolutely. Six years.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur. It is a very difficult process to get agreement from states and territories around making food regulation. It is the nature of a federated system that those delays occur. But I do acknowledge the frustration that Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon are expressing.

We believe that the policy objectives underlying the bill could be met in other ways. We think there are better ways to provide more effective mechanisms to ensure that consumers are informed, while minimising the uncertainty on industry and working within Australia's existing food regulation system.

We note that the intention of the bill is to amend the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 to require Food Standards Australia New Zealand to develop and approve labelling standards to be used by food producers, manufacturers and distributors of food containing palm oil. The aim of this is to ensure that consumers are provided with clear, accurate information about the inclusion of palm oil in food. However, it is our view that the mechanisms for achieving this as currently drafted are unlikely to be effective.

The Commonwealth, as Senator Moore put on the table, has limited direct power under the Constitution over food regulation. Food laws and their implementation and enforcement are mainly undertaken by state and territory governments. However, the three levels of Australian governments have worked together over many decades in a cooperative manner to provide Australians with the benefit of consistent national food standards. The food regulation system is also bi-national; it includes the government of New Zealand.

We note that the bill fails to conform to the Australian food regulation system and does not recognise the role of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council within that framework. The FSANZ Act has of itself no effect in state or territory law, due to those constitu­tional restraints. The adoption, monitoring and enforcement of a standard is dependent on states and territories placing the standard into their law and meeting the conditions of their agreement with the Commonwealth. Therefore, a standard developed in accord­ance with the proposed section 16B of the bill may not be likely to become law, because states and territories are not bound to adopt something that is developed outside the current food regulatory framework.

The bill would require FSANZ to develop and approve a standard requiring palm oil to be specifically listed as an ingredient of food. If the bill is enacted, FSANZ would be required to make that standard—which would be unlike any other food standard that it can now make under its enabling legislation. The proposed standard would not have been made with regard to matters such as the protection of public health and safety, scientific evidence, consistency with international standards, or policy guidelines formulated by the ministerial council that FSANZ has a statutory obligation to consider based on the best available scientific evidence. I want to now talk about the impact on industry. The bill in its current form may have serious ramifications for industry which do not appear to have been fully considered. Potential adverse effects reach beyond manufacturers to retailers, distributors and importers and could affect business and trade in a very wide range of products. The Australian Food and Grocery Council has indicated that the costs to industry, including small business, are likely to be substantial. It is important to note that it could affect every supermarket and corner store in this country. We are debating a bill that has not been subject to any regulatory impact assessment. If passed, this bill is likely to impose more than minimum effec­tive regulation and therefore would be at odds with the COAG principles for national regulation and assessment. These principles are directed at achieving minimum effective regulation, taking into account economic, environmental, health and safety concerns.

Australian national competition policy requires proposals for new regulation to demonstrate that the competitive effects of regulation are no more restrictive than is necessary in the public interest and that the benefits of the regulation outweigh the likely costs. An analysis of the regulatory impacts of the bill, including an analysis of all the costs and benefits, has not been undertaken.

In addition, we have concerns about the proposed penalty provisions which would amend the Australian Consumer Law and which are contained in the amendments that we will debate shortly. We received those amendments at 8.30 last night. Again, in the current form of the bill there is an issue about the legal efficacy of the provision and the degree of certainty that it creates for consumers. Australian Consumer Law is subject to an intergovernmental agreement which provides that any amendments must be the subject of consultation with the states and territories. The national approach to consumer protection legislation serves Australian consumers well, and we have concerns about one-off proposals that undermine the integrity and consistency of the laws and the scheme established in the agreement.

There is doubt that amending section 33 of the Australian Consumer Law in this way would produce the desired outcome that Senators Xenophon and Brown are seeking. Food-labelling standards are not enforced as part of Australian Consumer Law. This amendment has the potential to be ineffectual and increase confusion for both business and consumers. The limited nature of the carve-out for palm oil will only increase compliance costs for businesses and create uncertainty for consumers. Under this amendment, for example, why can olive oil be labelled as vegetable oil but not palm oil?

Moreover, the proposed amendments to the ACL appear to reach far further than food to a range of other products where palm oil is used. These include soap, detergent, cosmetics, lubricants and biodiesel. These are the sorts of issues that need to be considered in a proper form. In the normal process of policy development there should be an opportunity to seek feedback from stakeholders and experts in the field. I have to say that it does make a nonsense of parliamentary process to move amendments to a law when we have no confidence that they will actually achieve their stated aims. This only creates more red tape, more regulation for business and more confusion for consumers. I will have a series of questions in the committee stage that go to these Australian Consumer Law issues.

The Australian Consumer Law was introduced with the support of those opposite after a long and thorough consultation process. It involved a Productivity Com­mission report and the cooperation of the states and territories and it passed both houses of parliament. Each state and territory subsequently passed its own version of the Australian Consumer Law. It was introduced so that we could cut the red-tape burden and make consumer protection laws easy to interpret for consumers and business alike. If we go about making ad hoc changes to the Australian Consumer Law we will begin to unravel the very thorough policy process that underpins this reform. Seeking to amend the ACL in this way flies in the face of the intergovernmental agreement on the ACL that the Commonwealth and all states and territories have entered into.

The uniform national law for consumer protection has been built on the cooperation of all Australian governments. By unilat­erally making a change, particularly one that may have unintended consequences and create confusion and uncertainty for consumers, this bill would be breaking the agreement that we have signed. After having voted to implement the Australian Consumer Law, those opposite, if they vote for this bill as they have indicated, would be breaking apart the fruits of that cooperation. The ACL is an important microeconomic reform that has helped to reduce the compliance burden of business and improve the level of consumer protection in our country. It also flies in the face of good policymaking. Without any input from the states and territories, without any consideration of the regulatory impacts and without any thorough examination of the efficacy of the amendments, the actions of those opposite could seriously undermine the cooperative work that has been undertaken in the development of the Australian Consumer Law.

The government has already engaged in a process of considering the recommendations of the report into food labelling, Labelling logic: review of food labelling law and policy, which covers these matters. Palm oil labelling is one of the issues that has been considered by the review and there are recommendations in the report about the way forward. We have always said to the other parties in this chamber that we would be happy to consult with them throughout the process of considering the recommendations of the report. I say again: we share the aim of all senators in this chamber that consumers should be appropriately informed, but it has to be done without imposing inappropriate costs on business. If this bill is passed it will pre-empt a considered response to the labell­ing review report due in December of this year.

As Senator Moore noted, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee reported on this bill. In the majority report of Labor and coalition senators, the committee noted that while the objectives of the bill had merit, the drafting of the bill would possibly not achieve those objectives without circum­venting the current regulatory environment. It further found that concerns could be more adequately dealt with through COAG and the government's labelling review. Given that the final amendments to the bill were not circulated until 8.30 last night, it has not been possible for affected stakeholders and industries to be properly consulted or for us to receive any legal advice. It has not been possible to fully assess any unintended consequences. The approach adopted broadens the category of items subject to the amendments from food to all goods, with the effect that the proposal will have a much broader impact on industry and potentially cover many manufacturers, importers and retailers beyond the food industry. It is of concern that senators in this chamber are faced with making a decision on this bill without appropriate consultation with affected stakeholders, including con­sumers, small business and manufacturers, across the country. For these reasons, we believe this bill is premature without further consideration of those important issues. I might make the point that it is interesting that the opposition have come to this place with a desire to support this legislation. In the committee stage I would like the opposition to indicate why, if this is such an important issue, they did not do something about this in their years in government.

As I said at the outset, the government does consider it is important to provide appropriate information to consumers so that they can make informed decisions about the food they purchase and they consume. The government does recognise and shares the concern of all Australians about the impact of deforestation on the orangutan population. We believe that the bill in its current form may not achieve those laudable objectives. Moreover, it has been conceived hastily, with the final amendments circulated barely 12 hours ago, with almost no consultation with affected stakeholders, including con­sum­ers and small business. There is considerable uncertainty about how the bill will work in practice. However, we recognise that many senators have strong views about the importance of this bill and its intent and we understand the community interest in the issue. Given that, we will not be opposing the bill.

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

in reply—I wish to sum up in relation to this bill, the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2010, before the vote on the second reading. I am grateful that the government indicates that it will not be opposing it and I am genuinely grateful for the contribution made by Senator McLucas. It was a substantive contribution dealing with the issues of concern, and these are issues that will of course be dealt with in the committee stage as well.

I want to reiterate what Senator Siewert said. This has been a long time coming. We have run out of patience in relation to this issue. We have been talking about the labelling of palm oil in food and goods for many, many years—for the six years that Senator Siewert has been in the Senate and the three years that I have been here and many years before that—with a whole range of advocacy groups and consumer groups that have been concerned about this issue. Yet the government is effectively saying that it is all too hard and we have to await the outcome of the Blewett review. We do not need to do that; we can find a way forward—and this bill is that way forward.

I welcome the questions that Senator McLucas raised, and these will be dealt with further in the committee stage. I know that these amendments were put up very recently, but they are amendments aimed at simpli­fying the bill and making it clearer and more effective. If I remember, not so long ago, in relation to the NBN legislation, there was a whole swag of very, very complex amendments—

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Siewert. She said, 'Welcome to our world.' I worked in good faith with Senator Conroy to work through those amendments and to get the government's legislation through, because we all wanted to achieve a laudable policy objective.

So let us look at what is happening here. Contrary to Senator Feeney—for whom I have enormous regard—I want to make it clear that this is a bill that I co-sponsored with Senator Brown. Before that, in 2009, Senator Joyce co-sponsored effectively the same bill. This is something that members of the coalition, particularly Senator Joyce, have had a long-term interest in. This is a bill that I have worked on very closely with Senator Siewert, and I am very grateful that this has been a team effort. I think Senator Feeney should acknowledge that there has been a joint effort—for my part with the Greens and earlier with Senator Joyce from the Nationals—in relation to this bill. So credit should go where credit is due. I am great believer in sharing the love.

I think it is also important to acknowledge that the coalition has considered the evidence and the facts and says that it is appropriate to support this bill. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, for supporting this bill and for the work of Senator Joyce, Senator Ryan and the member for Dunkley, Mr Bruce Billson, who has made, I believe, a number of very constructive suggestions to improve the bill, to simplify it and to make it effective—and those are the matters that will be dealt with.

The government says that this is not the way to do it. Well, this has to be the way to do it, because the government has known about this bill for a long time, since 2009. It has been aware of this bill for 18 months. I do not want to be critical of the government particularly about this, but I will give a contrasting approach. I introduced a bill on dumping just a few months ago, earlier this year, and from day one—in fact, before the bill was introduced—I worked very closely with Minister Brendon O'Connor and his staff. There were a number of meetings to see what could be done to make the bill or parts of it workable. The government announced in response yesterday that it would be putting up its own bill with a number of very useful amendments and reforms which will be debated later this year. That is what I regard as a cooperative process. I am always willing to engage with the government, the opposition and my crossbench colleagues if they are dinkum about dealing with something.

Here is an opportunity for us to do the right thing by consumers. Here is an opportunity to fast-track some much-needed reforms in relation to consumer protection laws. This bill needs to be dealt with today, and it needs to be dealt with in the other place very soon, assuming that it passes this place. The benefits of it will be that con­sumers will get some meaningful informa­tion that they hitherto have not had. I am very grateful to Senator Ryan, who—in two minutes and 45 seconds—eloquently outlined the matter. It is important that we deal with this substantively in the committee stages of this bill.

I want to make it clear that I have acted in good faith at all times in relation to this—as have my colleagues, Senator Siewert and Senator Brown. We have come to this because the concerns have been ignored by successive governments. I am pleased that the opposition has come on board. This will be a significant, substantive reform and a good reform. I look forward to the com­mittee stages of this bill so that we can progress this bill and hopefully have it passed in this chamber very shortly. I commend the bill to the Senate and I look forward to the committee stages of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.