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

I will keep my remarks on the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill brief because I know that my co-sponsors of the bill—Senators Lazarus, Lambie, Whish-Wilson, Wang and Madigan—also want to put their views on the record. At the outset, I would like to thank both the government and opposition for the time they have spent discussing this bill with me and my colleagues. I think that many senators and members, spanning all political allegiances, support the intent of this bill. I hope we can find a way forward to make these vitally important changes. I also note that the government will later today set aside, in the context of housekeeping and procedural motions, a time on 12 August for this bill to be voted on. We must deal with this bill sooner rather than later.

While the government and opposition both want more time, I see in the chamber Senator Sterle and Senator Bullock, both of whom have been terrific advocates for seafood labelling. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with them on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into this issue. Further, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of Chris Calogeras, the chief executive of the Barramundi Fish Farmers Association, and the aptly named Rob Fish, chairman of the Northern Territory Seafood Council. Both Chris and Rob, as well as their associations, are long-time advocates of seafood labelling. Their support and advice has been invaluable.

In short, the bill aims to address an exemption in the current regulations regarding country-of-origin labelling. Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code currently says that country-of origin labelling does not apply to food cooked and sold for immediate consumption. The point made by Senator John Williams was a very good one: we have all these laws about country-of-origin labelling which apply to where you buy your fish, but if the restaurant is 30 metres down the road, all that gets thrown out the door. You just do not know where the fish comes from. That is an anomaly that we as a parliament must fix up.

All this bill aims to do is remove the exemption for fish and seafood so that customers buying fish and chips at their local takeout, or a meal at a restaurant, can see where that fish or seafood comes from. It is a very simple change and one that both industry and consumers wholeheartedly support. In an ideal world we would of course work with FSANZ and the ministerial council to change the regulations. Those options are not, however, open to the crossbench, so we have chosen to take a legislative approach. The removal of this labelling exemption has been supported by two Senate inquiries—not one but two: one into seafood labelling and the other into this bill. I am very grateful for the work that has been done by the committee, by Senator Heffernan as chair of the legislation committee and by Senator Sterle as chair of the references committee. The inquiry reports were supported by all members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. Best of all, we can already see how this exemption would work—we need look no further than the Northern Territory.

At this point I think it is important to acknowledge the work carried out over many years by Senator Nigel Scullion, well before he got into this place. He led the charge in the Northern Territory and I believe would love to see this measure adopted across Australia. I am very grateful for his support in respect of this. What we see in the Northern Territory is a measure that has been good for consumers, good for producers and good for the food services sector.

The evidence received by the Senate committee indicated that there had not been a significant impost on businesses. In fact, many of them were now in favour of the labelling because they could charge a small premium for local produce and it has become a real selling point. If you go to restaurants in Darwin, it is a point of pride that they can say whether it is local or not—where the barramundi has come from, where the prawns have come from.

The committee also heard from the seafood industry about the demand the measure had created and the capacity for new jobs it would lead to if it were rolled out nationally. The economic benefits of improved labelling requirements are clear and significant. The committee report into seafood labelling outlined that, since the introduction of country-of-origin labelling in supermarkets, the trawl fishery industry has increased its turnover from $4 million to over $30 million, and sales of snapper have increased 400 per cent. Further, during the 29 September hearing last year, Helen Jenkins of the Australian Prawn Farmers Association estimated that over 4,000 jobs could be created in the farmed prawn sector alone if the country-of-origin requirements were extended. Chris Calogeras of the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association also stated that many hundreds of jobs could be created in the barramundi industry.

I also want to make the point that, despite some concerns that have been raised with me, it is my view that these measures are not against WTO rulings. Whatever happened to issues of sovereignty? The WTO should not be stopping the parliament of Australia determining whether consumers have the right to know where their seafood has come from, whether it is local or imported. How can that be in breach of WTO rulings? If it is, there is something seriously wrong with the WTO rulings. In fact, the WTO has confirmed that country-of-origin labelling is a legitimate objective that is consistent with its rulings, but such labelling must not impose differential costs that outweigh any benefit.

I believe these concerns may be based on the example of cattle in the United States. My understanding of that issue was that the requirement that imported cattle and US cattle had to be kept in separate feedlots led to a higher cost burden on imported cattle. Those cattle were then not purchased because of the costs imposed, not because of consumer choice, which meant the measure failed the WTO obligations. This proposed measure is very different and does not impose the cost burden that the US example does. It is simply an extension of the requirements we already have for retailers.

In short, the measures in this bill are straightforward. There is no reasonable argument against them. They are not against WTO rulings. They will not create a burden on the industry and they will have an incredibly positive impact on Australian seafood sales within Australia and, with that, create many thousands of well-paying Australian jobs. I genuinely hope we can find a way forward with the government and the opposition on these measures. I again want to thank the majority of my crossbench colleagues—all those who have co-sponsored the bill, including Senator Madigan, who has been a great passionate advocate of this, and Senator Whish-Wilson, who understands not just the benefits for his home state of Tasmania but the national benefits of this.

They are relatively simple measures, but their impact would be immeasurable. In short, I cannot see the downside to these changes. I call respectfully on the government and the opposition to either support this bill or make their own legislative and policy changes as a matter of urgency. We will have an opportunity to vote on this on 12 August. Let us not let down the Australian seafood industry and every consumer in Australia who desperately wants these changes.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to report to the Senate that I am in no way a risk to the sustainability of Australia's fish stocks, given the fact that despite many efforts to the contrary I have never, ever been able to catch an edible fish in my entire life. So I have a very, very keen interest in this subject, being a passionate consumer of fish. I rise, as I know others do—it is tremendous in this place to actually have a high degree of consensus—to speak on an issue that is of interest to all of us, and that is the accuracy of labelling and the giving of an opportunity for consumers to know where their product came from.

As Senator Xenophon and the range of others who are co-sponsors have said, this is an area of great interest. We have had the RRAT references committee chaired by Senator Sterle and the RRAT legislative committee chaired by Senator Heffernan, which have spoken in favour in this area. One of the points I do wish to clarify when people speak about the exemptions that restaurants, bars, cafes and hotels share at the moment with regard to food labelling is that exemption is not confined to fish. It is confined to any product or any produce, be it beef, be it lamb or be it any other product. Let us just be clear that we are not at the moment in a situation in which fish is the only accepted product.

What we do have at this time, as pointed out by the National Seafood Industry Alliance in a very well-structured campaign, is a circumstance in which if somebody goes into a shop to purchase fish, then they do know the origin of the fish under current legislation and regulation around Australia. There is a sign there saying, 'Is this a product of Australia, Thailand, Vietnam, New Zealand or wherever it is?' Then when they go into a restaurant, bar, hotel or fish and chip shop and they say to the person, 'Is this is a product of Australia?' there is no way for that waiter or person who is providing that service to know. This is at the core of the position being put forward by Senator Xenophon and other colleagues to overcome and to change. The other point that is so relevant in this discussion is that we already have a circumstance in the Northern Territory where in the retail space—in the food consumption, at the point where the product is about to be presented to the customer—the customer in the Northern Territory does have that opportunity. That is because we know the origin of the product—be it Australian or be it whatever—is there for all to see.

There have been allegations saying that this is trying to be protectionist about the Australian product. No, it is not. It is one of the distressing pieces of information to me, particularly since we are in the largest island continent on the earth, that 70 per cent by volume or by weight of our fish is actually imported. That is not 70 per cent by value; 70 per cent by weight or by volume is actually imported. I do not believe this measure is directed at some form of Australian protectionism. I think it is more directed at giving the Australian consumer the opportunity of knowing where the product came from. If they choose to actually select the Australian product, there may be all sorts of very good reasons for that.

I do want to, if I may, divert the attention for one moment whilst relevant. That is to speak to the excellence of the management of Australian fisheries. You may ask the question, 'Why is it that 70 per cent of our fish is imported? Is it because of poor management of the Australian fisheries?' I for one want to make the point very, very strongly that it is not. As you know, there is in existence internationally the Marine Stewardship Council. I am a Western Australian. I know Senator Sterle and Senator Siewert finds themselves in the same position and, from his origins, no doubt Senator Whish-Wilson as well—we will drag you into the camp for a moment also! The first fishery in the world to so be awarded by the Marine Stewardship Council for its sustainability was the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery. It continues to this day to enjoy that accolade by the Marine Stewardship Council for its certification as a sustainable fishery.

Whilst today is not the time to be speaking more about that, I think it is relevant to actually draw to the attention of people interested in this subject that this Australian fishery is a very, very well-managed fishery. I understand, and Senator Colbeck will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, that the certification by the Marine Stewardship Council has now been extended beyond the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery to a pelagic fishery and even beyond. I think it is important that anyone interested in this subject is aware that this Australian fishery is in very, very good hands. It is very well managed. In fact, the actual take of fish for commercial and recreational purposes is a very small proportion of what is accurately estimated to be the actual stock size.

Like Senator Xenophon, I want to encourage others to use this opportunity to speak, so I will not use all of my time, except to remind people here in the chamber that the outcome that we are all trying to achieve here today will only happen as a result of a fully consultative process. That consultative process requires the cooperation of the state and territory governments and New Zealand. As we move, hopefully, towards a resolution in August, where we are able to vote on this, I for one hope that we will be able to take on board all of those inclusions that should come into play for a successful resolution.

Following the hepatitis A outbreak earlier this year, the Prime Minister formed a working group of ministers because of the high level of concern and the relevance to human health. That working group of ministers includes the Minister for Industry and Science, Ian Macfarlane; the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb; the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson; and the person who has got carriage in this place of this area, the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Nash. I trust there will be a high degree of cooperation by all of us so that we can take on board and include the outcomes of that working group and actually progress this.

But I want to make the point that the government is now taking action and it does hope to pass the legislation, to give producers time to adjust and to implement the new country-of-origin labelling laws. If there are objections by retailers in the states of Australia, we need only direct them towards the experiences in the Northern Territory, which tend to have been positive. But I again want to remind everybody in this chamber that it will only take place through a consultative process with the states, territories and New Zealand. Let us be clear on what Food Standards Australia New Zealand can and cannot do. FSANZ cannot approve standards. They can only provide advice and they can only report on existing standards. So, before we go to groups like this to set them tasks, let us be clear on what they are able to achieve and not able to achieve. At the end of the day, to give full effect to this, it is going to require a high degree of cooperation from the states. Federally, we can pass the legislation but then all we can really do is to say, 'We think this is critically important and, constitutionally, you at state level should play your role in making sure this comes to pass.'

For the Western Australian fishing and aquaculture industries, seafood country-of-origin labelling as it applies to restaurants and other retail food outlets, such as fish-and-chip shops, hotels et cetera, is eagerly awaited and anticipated. I think Senator Sterle would agree, as others would from their home states, that we are very proud of our product. We are very proud of the Australian product. We are very proud of the way in which it is harvested and the sustainability of the fishery. This is something that we should be proud of and should reflect.

I will conclude my comments by moving away from the Australian consumer for a moment and talking about the inbound consumer, the tourist coming into Australia. When we as Australians go to countries like France, Italy and others, and to Asian countries to our north, we have a great expectation of actually sampling the local fare. My wife is an example when it comes to France, particularly. She has a passion to eat locally, to enjoy the local produce around us. That is probably one of her greatest expectations and probably one of the greatest inhibitions on my wallet!

Nevertheless, if we then translate that to the incoming or inbound visitor to Australia, one can only imagine, using barramundi as one illustration, that their expectation and hope to use and consume the Australian product would be as high as ours.

So, I say to Senator Xenophon and to his co-movers in this area that there is a great expectation. But let us work together, let us make sure that we do comply with all the requirements in terms of the consultation process. Let us reach agreement in this place so that we can send a message loudly to the states and territories that this is where we stand federally and this is where we encourage them at their state jurisdictional levels to actually proceed.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to 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.

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

What did you do on it?

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

We set up the inquiry, Senator. We established the policy framework to do it and we are in the process of implementing it. Now you have the opportunity to carry the baton and we will see if you say more than fine words for a press conference, we will actually see if you come to the party with a specific proposal. What was the Prime Minister's first reaction to the contaminated berries? His first reaction was to blame the manufacturers. He told ABC radio on 17 February:

The bottom line is that customers shouldn't be poisoning their customers.

I am pleased that the government has since dropped that line and instead has instituted a process aimed at reforming labelling laws. As I said before, Labor looks forward to finding a bipartisan solution on this issue, which is so vitally important to both Australian consumers and producers. Labor acknowledges that some sectors may have concerns about this bill but in view of the Blewett inquiry recommendations, the unanimous views of the Senate committee members and the strong public calls for clearer labelling, Labor supports the principles of reform.

Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food. In government, Labor took the view that buying Australian is important. So we invested in a suite of measures through the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative. Our Supplier Advocate Program supported industry leaders to act as champions for their sectors to build the capacity of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The Australian Industry Participation Plan for private sector projects worth over 500 million and for the government projects worth more than 20 million helped Australian firms win work on major projects. Buying Australian matters because it shapes the kinds of industries we have and therefore the kinds of jobs that are available to Australians.

I noted in Tuesday's budget papers that they acknowledged the success of Labor's buy Australian measures, measures which, I might remind the Senate, have since been cut by the Abbott government. You are all very good on the rhetoric but you actually cut the specific projects to do something about these matters. In the Department of Industry portfolio budget statements on page 48 it states:

The evaluation of Buy Australian at Home and Abroad was finalised in 30 June 2014. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Department of Finance expenditure review principles.

It goes on to state:

The evaluation found that the Buy Australia initiative developed well-targeted, effective activities to assist firms to build their capabilities and to identify new opportunities in major resource projects.

Well fancy that—an evaluation conducted in accordance with the Department of Finance expenditure review principles found that the program was effective. The evaluation found that the buy Australian measures delivered well-targeted services that assisted firms to build their capabilities and to identify new business opportunities. We could have told the Liberals that at the point at which the programs were introduced. That was the aim; that is what they delivered. That is why Labor interested 34.4 million over four years from 2011 through to 2015 in the buy Australia suite of measures. And despite what I might describe as the glowing endorsements of the program, the Liberals cut five million from the buy Australian programs. They cannot a further 80 million from the Australian industry participation measures and the future of the program, you would have to say, is at best unclear. Mr Hockey talks about industries and waxes lyrically about jobs of the future. What he does not seem to grasp is that we need successful Australian industries if we are to create the jobs of the future.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Let us just have a look at what happened on Tuesday night. There was no more money. You know your rhetoric.

A government senator interjecting—

Your rhetoric is: 'This is all business welfare.' Not another penny,' they said, as they saw the automotive industry march offshore. There is no more money for 'buy Australian' measures, not one more cent. There is nothing to reverse the $3 billion in savage cuts to science, research and innovation in last year's budget. Mr Hockey's second budget shows that this government has learnt nothing. If there were a prize for missing the big picture, first place would have to go to Joe Hockey.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please address your remarks through the chair, Senator Williams.

Senator Xenophon interjecting—

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

I am just responding to interjections, Madam Acting Deputy President. You might not be able to hear them, but they are coming very frequently into my right ear, I can assure you.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections, Senator Williams.

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

I will do exactly that, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will ignore the interjections from Senator Xenophon.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very wise move.

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

Thank you for the good advice, Madam Acting Deputy President. That is the situation. But I know progress will be made on this issue. I know that in time we will achieve our aims. We will achieve transparency and get people out there the information they want to have and need to have. I am sure we will get there in the end.

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

It is a bit disappointing that there is not much love in the room on this, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. I am having trouble with the committee around the country. I really did believe that we had tripartisan support—and when I say 'tri' I would include the crossbench in that, as well as the Greens. I really felt that we had support for some change. This is not the first tripartisan—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether this is actually in the standing orders, but it is understood that people in this chamber speak in the English language. There is no such word in the English language—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, and as an English teacher I have a few views on it myself! We will go back to Senator Whish-Wilson.

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

I will take it as a compliment that the Attorney-General has tried to throw me off my game on what is a very important debate. And it is very important from my perspective and from the Greens' perspective, and not just because we want to support the fishing industry in this country. We do not do that solely because we want to support local jobs. We support the fishing industry in this country because, compared with overseas fishing, it is more sustainable. It is the best option we have. It is not perfect. Australian fisheries management is not perfect. Senator Siewert and I have had significant debates in this country about marine protected areas. We have had debates about supertrawlers. There are still many things we have to do. The Borthwick review, for example, which was achieved by the community, talked about how we can better integrate ecosystem science into fisheries management. There are lots of things we can do that are better. But at the end of the day, when you are on the committee and you go to the Sydney seafood markets and you go down on to the floor, it is explained to you that a consignment of fish has been brought in from Indonesia that in the end they refused to sell because all the bones in the fish were broken and they were convinced that that fish had come from a reef that had been dynamited. Now, I have been diving on dynamited reefs, in Lombok and other places. I have seen the damage these kinds of fishing operations do to ecosystems, and it really is heartbreaking.

We are very fortunate in this country, especially in Tasmania, where we do have beautiful oceans. But I can tell you, the ocean is broken in lots of places around the world because of unsustainable fishing activities. It is also broken because of pollution. It is broken because of climate change. And these seafood labelling recommendations that have come from a very good committee process—and I really enjoyed being part of that committee process—are a step in the right direction in ensuring that Australian consumers are empowered to make decisions that will lead to a healthier ocean. It is a good place to start, to have a country of origin labelling scheme that allows Australian consumers to say, 'This is an Australian product as opposed to an overseas product, and at least I know a little bit more about the fishery, and there are certification processes around that and I am comfortable supporting the local industry and paying a small premium.' Back in September we heard compelling evidence from the aptly named Robert Fish—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha!

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

of the Northern Territory Seafood Council. And Senator Brandis, that is his real name—in English! He is an English gentlemen, come to think of it. Mr Fish was arguing for more red tape to benefit his industry. Yes, you hear it right: more red tape. He argued that when mandatory seafood labelling was introduced into the Northern Territory, especially the labelling of country of origin, the industry boomed. It meant that consumers in fish shops, supermarkets and restaurants could clearly see which fish was Australian caught and which was imported, and it boosted not just the volume of locally caught fish that the Northern Territory residents bought but also the price consumers were willing to pay for a product that they considered better, safer and fresher.

The inquiry heard from restaurants, the fishing industry, environment groups, retailers and consumer groups on what was required. It was interesting that the Pubs and Clubs hoteliers association actually said that they opposed it. They had lobbied very hard to prevent it, and they were quite happy to tell the committee that they were wrong, with hindsight—that they actually now think the legislation was necessary and has been a boon for their industry. I think that is really important, because I think we know that the elephant in the room here is that when we look at the politics of bringing in a labelling scheme then potentially if we do not get the industry associations behind it we may see a backlash from potentially thousands of small businesses across the country that are being told they are having unnecessary regulation.

Yes, the fishing industry counts, in terms of the political sphere here, but the Greens would like to see that the Australian public understand that they are doing a good thing by the environment here as well—and that it is essential. It is not just about supporting local jobs it is about supporting marine conservation. It is about getting better results and letting consumers dictate the outcomes that we need to see in our ocean.

It was not a big leap of faith, on the back of such compelling evidence, for the inquiry to recommend rolling out this Northern Territory scheme around the country. Yet, since the release of these recommendations, the parliamentary secretary responsible for fisheries, Senator Colbeck, has come out and said that mandatory country-of-origin labelling would be costly and impractical for the restaurant sector. He said: 'There is nothing to stop food outlet services voluntarily promoting the source of their seafood on menus and menu boards.' Some do but, sadly, very few do. We have to accept, and choosing Mr Robert Fish's own words, there has been a market failure. An efficient market relies on the provision of information. You cannot have an efficient market without information.

We are doing a good first step, in providing information to consumers, with a country-of-origin labelling source. Mr Fish said:

The reality now is that we have demonstrated that there is absolute market failure here and there is a need for intervention. If anyone believes this is suddenly going to be voluntary labelling, they are kidding themselves. Yes, I am asking for more red tape and I think it is necessary.

He gave examples of people rushing into the supermarket, reaching into the freezer section and pulling out crumbed flathead fillets for dinner—I actually saw these when we went to the supermarket in the Northern Territory. The chances are that those crumbed pieces of fish are South American flathead, a species of fish that is not even closely related to the flathead you can catch in, for example, Tasmania's estuaries and bays. We had some really good evidence from a Tasmanian business, Mures seafood, that this kind of flathead is making its way into fish–and-chip shops and is being sold at similar prices to Australian flathead—at a really big margin—for restaurants.

This is a good start. It is a win for consumers, industry and the environment. But we the Greens do believe that we need to build on this platform and ensure the long-term health of the ocean. If we do not, ultimately, no-one will be a winner. We would like to see momentum here, and I sincerely hope there is momentum. My first indications from this morning's debate is we already have some points of difference. We have been down this road so many times before—for decades we have tried to get labelling schemes in place, and we always seem to fail at the last hurdle.

Eventually, I would like to see us have a scheme like the European Union has in place, that is essentially the world's benchmark. We will have the benefit of seeing how that unfolds, seeing the complications and potential issues with that scheme. We can learn from that. This is where we start. We start at country of origin and we look at what the EU is doing.

The Greens and I will be putting up an amendment to this bill to include fish-name standards. We believe it is only a small step towards what we would like to see—in the European scheme—but adding species names to this legislation is very important for the environmental outcome. This is not just a Greens initiative. I want to make it really clear that recently we saw a joint position statement from 17 environmental NGOs who cover the marine environment and the seafood industry calling for mandatory use of an Australian fish-name standard for identification of seafood.

I can give you some of those names in seafood, because we are very familiar with them and we have met with them. The Northern Territory Seafood Council has called for the inclusion of fish-name standards. The Australian Prawn Farmers Association has called for the inclusion. The Barramundi Farmers Association of Australia has called for the inclusion of fish-name standards. There is also the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, who cover the commercial-fishing industry. Lastly, we have seen the FRDC, our government department, that has put this together. So we have a broad range of stakeholders around the country who want to add to the country of origin—at least, 'Label my fish; tell me where it is from.' It is not too much information and it is very important.

You do see it already in place for some restaurants. I went to one in Manly, in Sydney, recently and spoke to the proprietor. They labelled the species and where the fish was caught. The guy said, 'I can even give you the mobile phone number of the fisherman who caught it.' That is obviously great marketing for them. They are in a prime position. They can charge good prices for the seafood, to tourists and others. If we had that kind of information we would have a much healthier ocean.

I would like to finish with some quotes from Woolworths and Coles, on this issue of an Australian fish-name standard. It is not often I stand up in this chamber—or anywhere—and congratulate the big supermarkets. In this case, I absolutely will. The big supermarkets are the benchmark. They are leading this debate. You could say they are big corporations and make lots of money and, therefore, they can afford to do this. But they are leading by example. I will read what they said in support of the Greens amendment for fish-name standards—or the substance behind the amendment. They made these statements in a Senate inquiry submission. Woolworths said:

A step to addressing this situation could be to formally mandate the Australian Fish Names Standard and require all parties in the supply chain, including both retailers and food service providers, to comply with the names that the Standard has established. Adopting the Standard would provide a consistent naming system and make a substantial contribution to allaying a potential source of confusion. Woolworths' labelling is already in accord with the Australian Fish Names Standard.

Coles said:

However, we respectfully suggest the Australian Fish Names Standard AS SSA 5300 could be incorporated into existing labelling legislation (such as the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code)—

which we debated a little bit here today—

to ensure greater consistency in naming each species of seafood produced or traded in Australia. This is important from both a business and consumer perspective because we have found significant variances in naming of seafood not only by region, State/Territory within Australia, but also globally. For example, snapper in Victoria is a different species of fish to snapper in Western Australia.

Adequate resources will be required to improve fish-name standards to the point where there is a standardised common name to uniquely match each individual species. But my understanding is that we are very close to that, and the Australian Fish Names Standard will be funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

We have a situation here where all the key leading NGOs—Greenpeace, WWF, WSA and a whole number of different groups coming together—with industry are calling for at least the inclusion of fish-name standards in legislation. I have the statement here in front of me. I will not read it, because I am running out of time. Let us all come together on this. Everyone on the committee could see just how much sense this made. Pardon the pun. This is good for local business, it is good for the seafood industry and it is good for the environment. It is a good first step.

If you think this is going to be too much for pubs and clubs, and fish and chip shops around the country, it was not in the Northern Territory. A state like my state, Tasmania, would greatly benefit from a similar scheme to promote our local seafood industry. We can always find reasons not to do things. Let us be honest—we can always look at any piece of legislation and say, 'We can find some talking points as to why this should not occur.' This is a long-term strategic decision that we are making here today—that is, to move our industry onto an economically sustainable footing and to move the environment onto a sustainable footing. And we can do it.

Let us take the time we need to for education, but let us not find nitpicking points in the legislation to knock this back. The Australian people would support this—I know the Tasmanian people would support it. The Australian people will just scratch their heads and say, 'Why not? Why can't I have that information when I buy seafood?' It is a no-brainer. Let us do it. I look forward to moving my amendment at some stage and having everybody look at it and at least having that debated, followed by a long-term process being put in place where we can use the seafood industry to lead on country-of-origin labelling in this country.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After a few false starts, I am glad to get up and have an opportunity to make my contribution. Those false starts were no problem, because the quality of the speeches today has been exceptional. I do not normally say that, but it has, as you would know, Senator Brandis. The problem is: anyone listening would think, 'Why can't these buggers get their act together if they're all agreeing on it?' But I will go into that. I want to offer congratulations, firstly, for the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015, which is co-sponsored by Senators Xenophon, Lazarus, Lambie, Whish-Wilson, Wang and Madigan. But I just want to mention the hard work that was put in by my colleagues Senator Xenophon and Senator Whish-Wilson on the inquiry. When they speak, they speak with authority. They speak with expertise because they, alongside me, Senator Bullock, Senator Lines and Senator Williams, actually did the hard work. We did the inquiry.

The problem with appearing further down the speaking order is that a lot of the points have been made, but I still want to make them. The hard work was done in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which I have proudly chaired, on and off, in government and in opposition in one way, shape or form for about eight years now. We actually got off our backsides and we called for submissions—this was last year—and we received around 25 submissions. More importantly, we travelled the country. We went to Sydney, and in Sydney we heard from an array of witnesses who were all experts in their own field, whether it be in providing seafood, catching seafood or concern about the environment. I just want to touch on some of the people that fronted the committee to give us their view on country-of-origin labelling: the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association, the Southern Shark Industry Alliance, our good friend now Mr Robert Fish—as Senator Whish-Wilson was saying, that is not his tax-avoiding name; that is Mr Robert Fish himself—from the Northern Territory Seafood Council, the Master Fish Merchants' Association, the Sydney Fish Market, Greenpeace, the National Seafood Industry Alliance and others. But they all made the same point. No-one was in opposition to giving the Australian consumer the opportunity to make an informed decision about where the seafood that they purchase comes from.

This was not part of the plan to start with, but what kept coming up was that the Northern Territorians had done it—and hats off to the Northern Territorians. At the time, it was a Labor government, but it does not matter what persuasion the government was. It was important, because it has delivered the results that people said it would not deliver. So we got on the plane and we headed to Darwin, and we had a hearing in Darwin. But, before we had the hearing, we had a wonderful opportunity as a committee to visit the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm. Senator Peris knows the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm better than any of us. It was an absolutely wonderful opportunity to see what can be done when the initiative is there, when you have got people of passion who not only provide a fantastic product for Australian consumers but they provide Australian jobs. There is nothing better than when you get there and you see the smiling faces of Australian workers on their doorstep, actually getting into it and providing something that we as consumers want.

With all the kerfuffle and the carry-on, I have to say very clearly on behalf of my fellow committee members that we never, ever set out to denigrate or cease the importation of seafood from other countries. That was not our intention. Our intention was very clear. If consumers knew where their seafood was coming from—and, from my position, I was only interested in whether it was Australian or imported—what would be evil about that?

What came out of every hearing was the same—whether it be the Top End restaurant in Darwin or the fish and chip shops or takeaway food venues or the pubs or the clubs—every place provided the opportunity to their patrons in saying, 'If you want Australian seafood, here is the price. If you want imported seafood, here is the other price.' What could possibly be wrong with that?

In Darwin Senator Bullock was very excited because he had not been in the retail store for about eight months and he was back on his home turf of Woolworths. He was leading the charge—he had a skip in his step, I have to tell you; he was off. The reason we went to Woolworths in Palmerston was to see for ourselves how seafood is displayed, marketed and labelled. I must say it is hats off to Woolworths and Coles throughout the nation, because they label their seafood with country-of-origin labelling very clearly. We saw about a dozen trays of seafood, fillets, calamari mix or prawns—Senator Bullock or Senator Whish-Wilson may pull me up—but the most important thing was that there were only two trays of imported seafood fillets and all the rest was Australian. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that the shopper at Woolworths that day and any other day comes hunting the Australian product.

It is all about the informed choice. We heard that no-one at all had a problem with what the Northern Territory has done. Previous speakers have said: 'There was fierce opposition from certain sectors of the business community.' There was fierce opposition from the Australian Hotels Association; the CEO of the Australian Hotels Association in the Northern Territory made it very clear that they were opposed but that he was speaking from a Northern Territory point of view, rather than for the rest of Australia. We know that restauranteurs were hugely opposed; part of their argument was the added cost or the red tape or having to rewrite menus. We did hear from one gentleman who was an AHA member and who owned six or eight establishments, ranging from hotels to fish and chip shops. He said that he had spent most of his working life writing menus and it was ridiculous to hide behind that excuse that you would incur greater cost. All you have to do with a menu is put a sticker on it saying 'Australian' or 'imported'. It is not that hard. Mr Bill Passy, who is the largest owner of fishing boats in the Northern Territory, gave an impassioned plea to us to promote and to enforce the issue around the country, because he said that fishermen do everything they can to be sustainable. They also provide opportunities for Australian workers and other businesses like net, tackle and bait suppliers, boatbuilders, fuel companies—there is a whole service industry that hangs off fishing. They do everything they can to make the industry sustainable and to provide Australian consumers with the best product that they possibly can. But he also said that they feel let down once the truck doors shut, because, once that wonderful Australian sustainable product leaves the freezer yard and travels to all points south, there is no recognition in other states that it is an Australian product, unless you go to Woolworths or Coles or unless you have the responsible food services person to say, 'This is Australian barramundi.'

I have had the misfortune in various parts of our country of ordering what I thought was barramundi and found as soon as it turned up on the plate that it was not Australian barramundi. Of course, they did not say that it was Australian barramundi; it could have been catfish from the Mekong Delta for all I know. But what I do want, and what I want the rest of Australia to know, is that, if you are putting your hard-earned cash on the table to purchase a product that you think is Australian because it has an Australian name, then you would hope that it is Australian. But it is not the case. While I am about it, I was talking to Senator Peris, who informed me that 'barramundi' is an Aboriginal word—which I knew. It is from the Rockhampton area and it actually means 'large-scale river fish'. But when you sit in some food outlet and you purchase what you think is barramundi—and this thing is like a thong without the toe bit on it turns up, my goodness me—it does make you feel that you have been used.

We have actually had some wonderful argument today. Unfortunately, the opposition cannot support the bill without amendment at this stage—and I do hope and pray that we can do something. Senator Bullock brought to my attention one part of the FSANZ submission. They have an issues list for standards. This is standard 1.211, which refers to country-of-origin labelling and in brackets it has 'Australia only', but it says that we do not have to get the approval from New Zealand. One of the previous speakers said that they could support the bill because we cannot do the labelling without the consent of the states and without the consent of New Zealand.

I also have the treaty we have with New Zealand, here. Article 4 talks about the Australia New Zealand Food Standard, and I want to take the time to get this on record, because I am a firm believer that if there is political will we can do anything in this country. Unfortunately, governments of all persuasions find excuses for not doing anything. Being an ex-small businessman from Western Australia, I do not cop 'We can't do'; I do not want to hear the reasons why such-and-such cannot be done. If I had that take on everything in my trucking business, we would have been eating our spare parts and tyres, because I would never have had the opportunity to make a quid and put my kids through school and build the beautiful home that we still live in. I want to hear how we can do it.

I want to touch on the treaty New Zealand treaty. I will go to the heading in Article 4—Consultation between the member states regarding relevant legislation. I am going to quote from the treaty:

(4) Australia shall not introduce any amendments to the Australian legislation establishing the Authority, or move government amendments to that legislation, without effective consultation with New Zealand during their development.

The magic words are 'without effective consultation'. It goes on to say:

Australia shall use its best endeavours—

And as an ex-union official, have I been flooded by best endeavours!—

including reflection of New Zealand's position in any relevant papers for the Australian Commonwealth government to reach agreement with New Zealand on these and any other amendments to the Australian legislation.

The five wonderful words are 'without effective consultation' and 'best endeavours'. I have read enough enterprise agreements over the years and I have been to court over industrial action to know that this is the wink way out by trying to blame it on the idea that we cannot do it without New Zealand. It is pathetic. I want to highlight for the chamber and everyone listening that, if we have the political will, we can do it. We can have our consultation; if New Zealand does not agree with us, we have tried and we have given it our best endeavour. Before I start a war across the Tasman, it is a shame that New Zealand does not consult with us when they steal our Australian manufacturing jobs. Do not start me on that one about canning. I know Senator Carr would be my greatest supporter on this and he would let me wander off the reservation on that. But, Senator Carr, you could not possibly comment, but leave it to me and I will.

I will get back to the bill itself. I strongly, strongly hope that both sides of the chamber and the hardworking, diligent crossbenchers who have introduced this bill can come to a sensible position. At each and every turn—and I will stand by this: I will say this in this chamber and I will take 30 steps to my right and repeat it outside—we must not be held hostage by the Food and Grocery Council. We must not be knocked down, beaten back and browbeaten by the hotels, the clubs and the pubs. If the Northern Territory could do it because they had the political will, the only way it cannot be done is by the gutlessness of the states.

I have highlighted that we should not hide behind New Zealand and say we need their approval. We do not. I am urging this place that, whatever we do, we have to work with the crossbenchers. Let's fall into a space where consumers in Australia can have faith that we have made our best endeavours to give them the opportunity to make informed decisions.

As I said when I started, when you listen to the debate going on here you might think, 'Why can't they get their act together, vote on it and all agree?' Senator Xenophon knows where I am standing here and where I am coming from. We do have some issues with the legislation. I think Senator Xenophon said there are a couple of weeks, so we have some grace. We are going to have some negotiations, I hope. But, by crikey, to get country-of-origin labelling in our seafood industry and our seafood consumption I will do whatever I have to do.

I cannot express enough about the hard work that was done. The hard work has been done—it is right here in the report—and it was done with my fellow committee members. We are affectionately known as the 'RRATs', because it is the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. We actually came to a consensus report. For those listening out there in radio land, it is not very often that we come to a consensus with passion so that we on all sides of the chamber support the recommendations of the committee report. There are a number of reports we do where, yes, we agree, but are we going to stand on a box and scream from every corner? This is one of these reports. This is one of those bills—not in the current shape that it is in, Senator Xenophon, Senator Lazarus, Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Madigan. But I do urge everyone: let's do the right thing by the Australian consumer. Let's do the right thing by the Australian seafood industry. Let's do the right thing by all those that are employed in this wonderful industry.

We should never, ever take a backwards step because we have a full charge head-on from the Australian Food and Grocery Council. In fact, we should headbutt them. We should knock them back. We should take them on, because why the heck can they determine what the hell we eat and where it comes from? They do not want to tell us. I will tell you why: because there is the opportunity for a middleman to scam a few bucks off it. Well, I am not interested in that. I am interested in the Australian seafood industry, the aquaculture industry and the Australian consumer.

I sincerely hope that someone wants to take me on and have the argument outside these walls, because I will take them on. You see, we got off our backside. We did the work. We listened, we consulted, we visited and we formed this opinion without any arm-twisting. We have formed our opinion that the states have a lot to answer for. The states must not be let off the hook. The states must extract the digit. I do not want to hear why they cannot do it but why they will do it.

When I said the Northern Territorians have done it, someone—and I just wish I knew who it was—said, 'Yes, but that's the Northern Territory.' What the hell does that mean? Are we supposed to say that the Northern Territory is not as intelligent as the other states? So I want to congratulate the Northern Territorians on the way that they have done it. I want to congratulate those who came to the hearing, those businesses in the Northern Territory that passionately put forward their case. Those who were against it were probably the loudest. While I am at it, I will say it one more time: Coles and Woolies, good on you. In fact, we should support Coles and Woolies for that, because they did not have to do that around the country. They had to do it in the Northern Territory but they rolled it out around the country.

There is also another little thing. I did not hear Hungry Jack's or Kentucky Fried Chicken complain. Does Kentucky Fried do fish? Anyway, you know what I mean. All them mobs out there—they all do it. Every single piece of seafood in the Northern Territory is labelled either Australian or imported. So let's hope we can get our act together. Let's hope we can fall in a space that does the right thing by the Australian consumer and the aquaculture and seafood industry of Australia. On that, I cannot support the bill with its current contents.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support 100 per cent Senator Xenophon's private members' bill, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. I congratulate him for putting forward this important legislation. Unlike the cowardly Nationals in this chamber, I will not only 100 per cent support the intent of the legislation; I will 100 per cent reflect that by support on the floor of this Senate and gladly stand on the side of the chamber which supports this bill and the Australian fishing industry. I will vote to put my state and fishing industry first. Unlike the Nationals, whose vote on this legislation will show that they have gone from being the bush's blue heelers in this place to becoming—as of this morning, after listening to Senator Williams's gutless speech, which tried to have two bob each way—the Liberals' poodles. And they are poodles missing a vital part of their male anatomy.

I now turn to the provisions of the bill. The bill is based on recommendations from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry. The current Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code covers fish but not seafood that is offered for immediate consumption in places such as restaurants. The committee recommended seafood for immediate consumption also fall under country-of-origin labelling regulations, as it does in the Northern Territory. A change like this is supported by consumers and the food services sector.

The bill gives 12 months for a standard to be developed and implemented to include seafood offered for immediate consumption. The bill's definition of food services includes places that give consumers a choice, not places such as hospitals, where consumers do not have a choice. The committee reported that, when country-of-origin labelling regulations came in for uncooked fish, the trawl fishery industry's turnover increased from $4 million to $30 million and snapper prices increased 400 per cent. The committee believes that, if country-of-origin labelling regulations were extended, it would create 4,000 jobs.

In closing, I would like to remind all Australians that Tasmania has the best seafood in the world. I understand that, in some fancy American and European restaurants, one of the normal kitchen appliances and cooking tools is a machine which checks the radiation levels in fish, because some fish, because of the distances they can swim, can be radioactive after swimming in polluted water. If you eat Australian and Tasmanian fish, you will not have to worry about that threat to your health. Our waters are pristine and our seafood is pristine and the best in the world.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Senator Xenophon's Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. I want to first acknowledge the clear passion and commitment on this issue. Senator Xenophon's views, of course, broadly are in line with many in the Australian community who want to know the origin of their food. We do have some of the finest produce and food products in the world. Australian farmers, fishers and all those in the food industry can be very proud of what we are able to do across the nation in supplying high-quality food both for other Australians and for many around the world. We certainly punch above our weight when it comes to this issue. We are lucky to have rich waters in which we are able to harvest some of the finest seafood products in the world. From the prawns in the north to the toothfish in the south, we are able to produce seafood that is the envy of the world, and it is important that, when Australians go to buy these products, they know that they are getting the real deal. That is why the government agrees that country-of-origin food labelling laws are important and appreciates Senator Xenophon's efforts in this area—but we do not support this particular bill.

Australia is a world leader in the regulation of food standards. Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Australian government's Health and Agriculture portfolios, along with state and territory governments, work in strong collaboration to ensure a comprehensive food standards regime is in place. While acknowledging again that there is some work to be done in the area of labelling, and the government is doing that work, there are still robust measures in place under the code of labelling and other information standards that ensure Australian consumers are given vital information on their food. These standards include the labelling of ingredients, date-marking of packaged foods, directions for use and storage, nutritional information and other health related information. The standards also require the most obvious label: what a food actually is. With regard to fish labelling, while the code does not provide a prescribed name for seafood or seafood products, it does require fish products to be labelled with safe cooking instructions. We also have in Australia legislation that ensures accuracy in labelling and prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct or representations about items of food, particularly in relation to the origin of those foods.

It is important to note amongst all this that, as mentioned, the peak body is Food Standards Australia New Zealand, so we are not working on this in isolation. We have a number of agreements with New Zealand to ensure consistent standards of food. Understanding that relationship is crucial when looking at making any changes to the system. This is just a brief overview of the food standards we have in Australia, but it is clear that they are strong and robust. Given that, if this place is looking at changing some of the legislation around food labelling, we need to be sure that the changes are of the highest quality and do not adversely affect what is on the whole a good system.

The government, though, does acknowledge that there are changes that can be made to the food standards system, particularly in relation to country of origin. On this point, we agree with Senator Xenophon. We want to ensure consumers have access to clear, consistent and easy-to-understand food labelling, through changes that will allow for more informed choices. I think most Australians would agree this is a positive move. The country-of-origin labelling system at the moment includes requirements for packaged food to be labelled with a statement that identifies the country where the food was manufactured or packaged and to the effect that the food is constituted from ingredients imported into that country or from local and imported ingredients. There are some exceptions to these labelling laws that are largely to do with goods being sold at the point of origin or through a direct transaction with a purchaser. These exceptions are the key subject of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report and the source of Senator Xenophon's bill.

For unpackaged fish, various meats, vegetables, nuts and other natural foods, there are requirements that the country of origin is identified or, if it is a product from a number of origins, that is made clear. Once again, there are mechanisms in place to prevent misleading or deceptive claims about the origin of a food product. With all this in mind, the government announced earlier this year that we are currently reviewing the country-of-origin labelling laws. While, as discussed, it is clear we have a world-class food standard system and our country-of-origin labelling regime is strong, it is not always easy for consumers to understand the system and recognise locally grown and processed food. To that end, the government is determined to look closely at this issue and to develop a system that makes it easy for consumers to identify the origin of their food.

The Prime Minister has formed a working group of ministers to progress this issue. The working group includes the Minister for Industry and Science, Ian Macfarlane; the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce; the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb; the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson; and the Assistant Minister for Health, Fiona Nash. The aim of the working group is to ensure that changes to food labelling give consumers information they need without imposing excessive costs on Australian industry and consistent with our international trade obligations.

The government will work with industry groups to ensure the changes are practical, but the intention is to implement both a symbol and words that can be clearly read and understood. We are also looking to utilise electronic platforms to provide more comprehensive product information to consumers, as only a limited amount of information can fit on food labels. This symbol and words will identify two key things: first, that the product was made or manufactured in Australia; and, second, what percentage—not specific percentages but increments—of the ingredients in the food or product was Australian grown. The government is currently working closely with the food sector and the agriculture industry to get the balance right and maximise information for consumers while also considering costs to Australian industry and businesses. Following the business consultations, the consumer research phase will begin, giving members of the community an opportunity to have their say. We also look forward to positive consultation with state and territory governments, whose cooperation will be required in order to implement a meaningful new labelling system.

Of course, there will be a reasonable phase-in period to give Australian producers time to adjust to the new food labelling requirements. The government is taking action now and hopes to pass legislation to give producers time to adjust and implement new country-of-origin labelling laws. It is important to note that the government is undertaking a thorough, methodical process in working towards a new country-of-origin labelling system. It involves full consultation with all levels of government, industry bodies and of course the public. The government will conduct market research, engage with stakeholders and look at ways the modern digital context can make a new country-of-origin system easier. That is how good policy and good legislation are developed. It takes time to get everyone on board and to get it right. Once we have the legislation right we need to make sure there is a transition phase, to allow businesses to get their labelling right without unnecessary costs. It is a process and it is one the government is committed to and is undertaking as we speak. Indeed, anyone who is interested in this issue can go to the government's industry website to get involved as the process goes on.

Once again, we recognise Senator Xenophon's work in this area, particularly on the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which looked into this issue last year. I have no doubt of the good intentions behind this bill. On the substance of the issue and the importance of country-of-origin labelling we certainly agree. However, as outlined, food standards and regulations are very complex, and the government takes them very seriously. We do not want to make changes without full and proper examination of the issues, and without consultation with stakeholders and the public. For that reason, we are not supporting Senator Xenophon's bill. Ultimately, we cannot support this bill, because it does not adhere to good regulatory practice, nor does it acknowledge the complex jurisdictional arrangements at work in our food standards system. The bill does not take into account that whatever changes we make to food standards must be made through a consultative process with the states, territories and New Zealand. As I have discussed already, our world-class food standards regime relies on the cooperation of the states and territories and their relevant legislation, as well as agreements between Australia and New Zealand.

The bill as it stands directs FSANZ to develop new standards that require fish sold for immediate consumption to be labelled according to existing country-of-origin requirements. However, no jurisdiction can direct FSANZ to develop a standard; they can ask for a review of existing standards. Organisations, any group or individual can put forward an application for FSANZ to develop a new standard. Food standards cannot be legislated; they are regulations and need to go through proper process. This bill, if passed, will breach Australia's obligations to New Zealand under the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning a Joint Food System. The bill intends to implement a standard made pursuant to the proposed section 16A, which would not be subject to part 3 of the FSANZ Act. This 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. Therefore, the proposed bill appears to be inconsistent with the obligation contained in article 5(3) of the treaty, which obliges Australia not to establish food standards other than in accordance with the treaty. The treaty quite clearly states:

Australia shall not introduce any amendments to the Australian legislation establishing the Authority, or move government amendments to that legislation, without effective consultation with New Zealand during their development. Australia shall use its best endeavours, including reflection of New Zealand's position in any relevant papers for the Australian Commonwealth government, to reach agreement with New Zealand on these, and any other, amendments to the Australian legislation.

So while we recognise the intent of Senator Xenophon's bill, the government cannot support it, as it contradicts our agreement with New Zealand and does not adequately deal with the cross-jurisdictional nature of our food standards system.

While we oppose this bill, I reiterate that the government is determined to act on the issue of country-of-origin labelling. Australia is a lucky country: we have spectacular natural resources that we are lucky enough to be able to use to provide food and nourishment to the Australian people and to the world. We have a comprehensive system in place to ensure that our food remains of the highest standard, and it is important that Australians know that, when they buy something from the supermarket to feed their family, if it says it is Australian, it is.

The government, like Senator Xenophon, acknowledges that the system is not perfect and that there is a need for a new country-of-origin labelling system that is clear and easy to understand. We are undertaking a thorough, methodical process to ensure that this new system is good for consumers and does not add any unnecessary red tape. We are consulting with the states and territories, the industry and the public while ensuring we adhere to our food standards agreements with New Zealand. That is how we get good policy and that is what we are doing. While we do not support this bill, I acknowledge the good work being done in this area and look forward to seeing the end result of the government's process, so that we can introduce soon a new and robust food labelling system for the benefit of all Australians.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. Like my colleagues who have spoken earlier, I support the intent of this bill. I will tell you why: there is nothing better than eating Northern Territory seafood. I encourage everyone to travel to the Northern Territory to try our local Territorian barramundi and mud crab and all the other delights from our seas, rivers and pristine waters and our world-leading, clean aquaculture farms.

When people eat seafood anywhere in the Northern Territory, they know that the seafood they purchase is local or at least caught or produced in Australia. However, with the omission of country-of-origin labelling on menus, consumers can be misled, believing the seafood they purchase to have been locally produced. To counter this—it has been heard many times in the chamber today—the Northern Territory introduced legislation so that consumers in the Northern Territory know where the produce originates. However, such legislation does not exist in the rest of Australia.

The national adoption of this type of legislation is important for local jobs and because eating local produce is a key aspect of the whole seafood experience. It is also vital to our tourism industry. People in the industry know that tourists do not come to Northern Australia to eat barramundi farmed somewhere else in the world, such as an Asian port. I agree with the Northern Territory Seafood Council and local producers who are advocating on this issue and with whom I have recently met.

The Northern Territory Seafood Council actively seeks mandatory labelling of seafood to ensure the consumer is able to make a fully informed choice about the seafood that they purchase. They say that the omission of comprehensive labelling, including details of the country of origin of seafood, is misleading to the consumer. I totally agree with this. I believe Australian consumers are willing to pay more for quality Australian seafood. The general perception in the Australian community is that the seafood they buy is local, and the Northern Territory Seafood Council believes cheap imports are damaging the high-quality reputation of Australian seafood. I commend their work across sectors and there is no doubt that Australian seafood is an important asset—as I said previously and I will continue to repeat it—to our tourism industry.

We should be supporting our industry and the Australian Seafood industry cannot price compete against cheap imports from fisheries without assistance. Senator Whish-Wilson spoke about it earlier on: what we are asking for is red tape within this industry. Assistance can come in the form of closing those loopholes in country-of-origin labelling for cooked or precooked seafood sold by the food services sector. Consumers deserve to be informed about the origin of their seafood, especially when choosing from the menu at a restaurant and in the supermarket freezers and fridges.

It is a legal requirement that seafood sold to the Australian public must be clearly labelled with its country of origin. These regulations were introduced by the federal government to ensure the Australian consumer can be accurately informed about the origin of their seafood. However, as we have heard many times today, there has been an exemption for seafood sold as cooked or precooked seafood in the food services sector. The parliamentary inquiry into the current requirements of seafood labelling came up with one simple recommendation: implement country-of-origin labelling throughout the supply chain by removing an exemption that exists there already for seafood sold in restaurants. The recommendation from the inquiry—and I am sure you know this very well, Acting Deputy President Sterle—says:

The committee recommends that the exemption regarding country of origin labelling under Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for cooked or pre-prepared seafood sold by the food services sector be removed, subject to a transition period of no more than 12 months.

The 12-month transition is to allow restaurants to change their menus.

I understand that some coalition members have been working against country-of-origin labelling, and I hope that their position will change through the course of this debate. Labor is ready to constructively consider the detail of the government's proposal and its implementation when it is released. However, at this stage, we are not holding our breath. We know that the agricultural white paper is still to be delivered and the seafood industry is therefore rightly concerned that this recommendation to remove the exemption for restaurant menus, like many other things under the Abbott government, may now be lost. I personally thank Senator Xenophon and the crossbench for their work in bringing this bill to the Senate. Labor thanks them for their work. I can assure you that I will continue to work to see the intent of this bill implemented, with amendment.

However, due to some serious technical concerns with the bill, we cannot support this bill in its current form. We have heard that several times throughout the debate today. Senator Williams did touch on that in his speech today. The bill cannot achieve its desired outcome because the parliament cannot direct Food Standards Australia New Zealand to amend the Food Standards Code. Only the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council has the authority to amend the Food Standards Code. However, this bill attempts to create the pathway for an amendment to the Food Standards Code to occur and that has been established by the intergovernmental agreement. It is almost certain that the states, whose support will be needed to approve the standard, will have an adverse response to this.

There is a lot of work to be done with the states and here in the ACT, but not with the Northern Territory. As I have outlined, we do not need to work on this because already have legislation to support our industry with clear food labelling that indicates the country of origin of the seafood. It promotes and endorses local produce. Labor supports the intent of this bill in principle, as I have already mentioned. We support the policy intent and we encourage any and all parties interested in seeing this amendment to the Food Standards Code to make an application through the process to Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Labor has a strong record in this area. Senator Carr touched on it earlier. We have a vested interest in promoting the country-of-origin labelling. Industry would remember that in 2011 Neal Blewett delivered the Labelling logic report which provided comprehensive advice to government on food labelling. The report noted that:

… there are a few inexplicable primary product exceptions, and the Panel believes the loophole should be closed and that CoOL should be extended to cover all primary products for retail sale.

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

The Labelling logic report has been Labor's blueprint for the reform of food labelling. Labor has already delivered on some of the key recommendations of this report, such as front-of-pack nutritional labelling. Labor has had a clear vision to improve food labelling for Australians. Therefore, we eagerly anticipate some strong actions to match the words of the Minister for Agriculture, who 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.

That was said by Minister Barnaby Joyce on 1 April 2015, but we are still waiting.

The Master Fish Merchants' Association of Australia have said:

The current exemption from country of origin labelling obligations for seafood which is sold for immediate consumption denies consumers access to adequate information on the origins of their food.

They also said it was inconsistent with the labelling obligations placed on fresh seafood retailers. Coles has said:

We believe all domestic and imported seafood sold in Australia should have CoOL to assist consumers make an informed choice about the origin of the seafood they purchase.

So, let me again touch on our leadership in this area in the Northern Territory. The food service industry in the Northern Territory has implemented a labelling scheme that requires the food service industry to appropriately label country of origin information. The Northern Territory system uses a license requirement to display 'imported' on imported fish. Our experience in the Northern Territory has demonstrated that the food service industry was initially resistant to the idea of displaying country of origin information on seafood sold for immediate consumption. But resistance soon dropped after implementation, as consumers were pleased with having the information they needed to make informed choices. That can only be a good thing.

Labor supports the intent of this bill, and we have heard the community demand for reform. Labor acknowledges that broad support for these measures has been demonstrated by consumer groups, the seafood industry and conservationists. We also acknowledge that some sections of the food service industry may have concerns about this measure. However, the parliament must balance the needs of the public for improved consumer information and the need for Australians to have confidence in the food safety and labelling system.

I am determined to ensure that our Northern Territory produce is able to be labelled when sold throughout Australia's restaurants. We need to find a bipartisan or multipartisan solution on this issue that is vitally important to Australian consumers and producers. If the government is serious about improving Australia's country of origin labelling, a good first step would be to address the recommendations of the bipartisan or multipartisan report of the Senate inquiry—which I think you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, spearheaded—into this issue. The report has been with the government, as I understand it, since October of last year. I think we all need to listen to the industry, listen to the consumers and listen to Australians—my constituents. They are screaming out for people to come and visit the Northern Territory to see where this produce goes, from farming right through to the plates of the top-class restaurants.

This year I have met with many stakeholders in the Northern Territory, including, as I mentioned, the CEO of the Northern Territory Seafood Council, Ms Katherine Winchester, and a local barra farmer, Mr Dan Richards, who is a proud fifth-generation Territorian. I visited Dan's farm, the Humpty Doo barramundi farm, earlier this year. It started 22 years ago from the humblest of beginnings. He had no infrastructure and little knowledge. However, he had a grand vision of what may be possible. The Humpty Doo barra farm has been an Australian iconic story, an example of why we should be supporting the local industry. In the early days of Humpty Doo Barramundi it was just pure tenacity, resilience and the dream that allowed the operation to survive the endless disappointments that a steep learning curve can bring. There was certainly no money and there were lots of expensive lessons to be learned. The owner and operator, Bob Richards, worked with a small group of volunteer family and friends, and he would go back to the drawing board after each failure and learn how to pull the business through the next step in its development. In 2002 Bob was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to travel around the world and learn from the top aquaculture operations about the sort of knowledge and systems that could be used to produce quality seafood. Bob brought these ideas back to Australia, shared them with the Australian industry and applied them to his own business. Thus the Humpty Doo barramundi farm was transformed.

Humpty Doo Barramundi has grown by an average of 30 per cent per year since 2000. It now employs over 20 people and sells fish into the fine dining and retail trade around the country. It has become the largest single producer of barramundi in Australia, this year producing well over a million kilograms of fresh barramundi for the Australian consumer. And it has the capacity to grow to be many times this size and employ many more Australians. As a regional business it employs a number of Aboriginal people and is actively striving to increase this as a partner through the Indigenous Future Stars program. The Humpty Doo barramundi farm is just one example of what it is possible for Australian business to achieve when there is a strong market for our quality produce. Across Australia, aquaculture operations like Humpty Doo Barramundi have the potential to grow in scale, creating many jobs across the country.

I would just like to tell a story. I took my son, all of 11 years old, there, with his mate—they had just won the footy finals. I said, 'Come on, son; we're going out to the Humpty Doo barra farm.' He said: 'Why are we going there, Mum? We can go to the shop and buy barramundi.' So, I wanted to show him where the produce began. It takes 24 months to nurture from larvae, which they farm—24 months to get it to your plate. You have the Adelaide River, which pumps the water in to the hatchlings, and from there it goes from pond to pond to pond. And the technology behind it is just absolutely incredible. If there is a small failure, whatever it may be, within 30 seconds alarms go off to alert the farm owners that something has gone wrong, which happens very few times. It is such an incredible way of farming local produce from the very beginning, and we can actually see how it gets to the restaurant plates. My son was so impressed. He is not a big fan of raw fish, but he caught his barramundi at the farm and took it to Dan and everything was set up and we had sashimi—fresh barramundi. There is nothing better than knowing the whole chain of the story, from the humblest beginnings to the restaurant plate—the fresh sashimi we had out at the barra farm. This is the way we can tell customers. What they are doing is competing against world prices, which is not good for local produce. We can put an end to that, and I think you said in your speech, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, that we need to have the political will to change this, and all governments should come together to make a difference, to support the local industry, to enable them to achieve to their fullest potential.

So I believe, with the appropriate legislative support allowing consumers to differentiate between Australian and imported products—which I just touched on—our high-quality domestic production has the potential to replace and displace a high percentage of our imports, but we can only do that if it starts here, in this place. This will create many Australian jobs.

For several years in the NT, all fresh fish sold in delicatessens or supermarkets, as I said before, have required labels to let consumers know where the product is from. This law has increased sales of Australian seafood. In fact, we are seeing more Australian seafood in NT supermarkets today than we did prior to 2006, when there were no country-of-origin labelling laws. The Northern Territory industry view is that country-of-origin labelling throughout Australia will result in increased sales of Aussie seafood in our supermarkets, like it has back home in the Northern Territory, and it will also increase sales of local and Australian fish in our restaurants. I believe Australian consumers are prepared to pay that little bit more to get quality local seafood and to support the local industry, and I genuinely believe that that can happen in this country. I have heard many times, 'There's no substitute for quality.'

After months of inaction by the government, Labor wait with interest the details of their plan, following their announcement of proposed changes to country-of-origin labelling. Unfortunately, we cannot support the Xenophon bill at this time, but we do support the principle. We need to find a bipartisan if not multipartisan solution on this issue—an issue that is vitally important to Australian consumers and producers. As always, Labor stand ready to constructively consider any positive policy proposals from the government. Hopefully, they can show the same leadership that we have shown in the Northern Territory.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a strong supporter of the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. This bill speaks to the very heart of what it means to be Australian—that is, that we should be supporting our producers, businesses, industries and of course jobs. Mandating that food outlets across the country provide the origin of the seafood served means that Australians will have the ability to make an informed choice about the foods they consume while dining outside of the home at restaurants and other food outlets.

Australia has some of the highest food standards in the world. We know that our produce is safe and is of the highest quality. If Australians have a choice when dining out between eating Australian seafood and eating imported seafood, the majority, I believe, will choose the Australian option. This in turn will more directly support Australian industries, which will support the growth of jobs.

In my home state of Queensland, we rely heavily on tourism. Hospitality and tourism are important sectors for all Queenslanders. Tourists dining in Australia want to consume our produce. The only way they can be assured of doing so is if seafood is labelled in restaurants and food outlets. The obligation on restaurants and food outlets to label food will be minimal. For example, restaurants will only need to display the origin of the seafood served on the menu or on a menu board. Therefore, the costs associated with implementing these labelling requirements are minimal; however, the benefits to Australia are significant. It is time we genuinely started to support our own industries, and jobs for Australians.

As of June 2014, there were some 72,000 businesses in the food and beverage services sector in Australia, including cafes, restaurants and takeaways as well as pubs, taverns, bars and clubs. Of those, 13,000 were in Queensland, with 90 per cent being small businesses. This means that the majority of businesses in this sector are Australian-owned enterprises that employ staff. By labelling the seafood served in these establishments, you are supporting these businesses and jobs, and all of those who work in the fishing and aquaculture sector. As a result, 13,000 businesses in my home state of Queensland will be actively supporting the promotion and sale of Australian seafood through menu labelling. According to many industry experts, seafood origin labelling will significant increase consumption of Australian produce across the country. This can only fuel the economy and of course grow jobs.

In June 2014, there were 6,348 businesses in the Australian fishing and aquaculture sector. Of those, some 1,500 were in Queensland, and 99 per cent of these were small businesses. This means that around 25 per cent of Australia's fishing and aquaculture is based in Queensland. Clearly, my home state of Queensland has much to benefit from this legislation. In fact, I recently visited several businesses in Queensland in this sector, including Gold Coast Tiger Prawns. I was impressed by the scale and calibre and quality of this business. They are producing prawns which are sold here in Australia. It is their view that there is increased scope to expand the business; we just need to encourage the people of Australia to buy Australian.

Unfortunately, based on statistics from the Department of Agriculture's 2013 annual report, Australia's consumption of imported seafood is roughly double that of domestic seafood. Clearly that needs to change. If the food and beverage sector is serving seafood labelled as Australian, then consumption of Australian produce increases. As a result, businesses in the fishing and aquaculture sector will flourish, which in turn will create more jobs and more revenue for Queensland and increase the economic prosperity of the country as a whole. It is for this reason that I support the bill and I strongly encourage everyone in the chamber to do so to support Australian businesses, to support the Australian fishing and aquaculture sector and to support Australian jobs.

We have heard a lot of talk from both sides of the chamber about the benefits of this bill. But unfortunately, and as expected, the two major parties decided that they would focus on the negatives and the reasons why we cannot have this legislation passed. You would think that if the two major parties were serious about this there would be amendments to this bill and we could vote on it and get it up because Australians need this legislation to get up. This bill is a result of a committee recommendation, and there is absolutely no reason why this bill should not get up. In due respect to New Zealand, it is Australia that needs this bill passed. As I have explained in my speech, as a result of this bill getting up the economic growth of this country would obviously increase, it would create jobs, stimulate the economy and put Australian produce, particularly seafood, at the forefront of everyone's mind.

They support the bill in principle, yes. It is a great bill. But, as I have said before, there has been no effort in coming up with amendments from either side of the House so this bill could be passed. That is certainly a very concerning issue for me because everyone agrees that this would be beneficial to everybody in this country. I call on all senators to support the needs of Australians and I call on all senators to vote for this bill.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this bill that we are debating, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015, is a very, very important piece of legislation. I would like to commend my colleague Senator Xenophon for bringing it to this place. There should be no surprise about my view on this. Of course I support the thrust of this legislation. But I would like to just take on board a couple of comments that have been made, certainly by Senator Peris, when I walked into this place.

Senator Peris indicated that, yes, there is multipartisan support for the thrust of this legislation in this place. But I would advise that when she is speaking to her speech writer she gets her speech writer not to verbal everybody before she has come into this place. For you to come into this place and say 'all of the coalition in this place'—as you read off the speech that was written—before you heard what people had to say, there are plenty of those people in the coalition who are not supporting this legislation, and then she goes on to say you are not supporting it either. When you are talking about Bob Richards, he would be pretty nauseated to hear that his own senator is politicising a bill that so far is not politicised. Everyone is on the same side here, Senator Peris, and I think it is completely unnecessary to take snapshots in a piece of legislation where it is very important to ensure that everyone is on the same side.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bit touchy today!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is completely disingenuous. I have a bit of history, and the reason I am perhaps a bit tetchy about this is that I spent an awfully long time, Senator Peris, in getting the Northern Territory's legislation to where it is today.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, please address your remarks through the chair and not directly to another senator.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are, in fact, going to roll it out across the country, which should have been done years ago, then it is really important that we provide multipartisan support for this piece of legislation.

One of the challenges to this legislation being adopted is that it is the responsibility of the states and territories, and the Northern Territory government, as we have already heard, has already provided some leadership in that regard and has gone forward. There are some technical issues, and I spoke to every state and territory in the early days of being in parliament and before I was in parliament, and they were always coming up with reasons why they do not all have the legislation. The technical part of the legislation in the Northern Territory that allows this to be the case was an amendment to ensure that anyone who handled fish that was for sale required a licence. Because you require a licence to sell fish in the territory, that means, as part of the conditionality of the licence, you are able to ensure that those things on the menu are labelled Australian.

So a simple amendment is available to every single fisheries act around Australia that would make this a very simple and a seamless process to ensure that people have a choice and they are making a choice as they look at the menu. I can give you an example. This is from Crustaceans on the Wharf, and I know Senator Peris would also, no doubt, have eaten there and will sing the praises of the wonderful seafood that is available there. You can now have Australian creamy garlic prawns. You can have Western Australian rock lobster mornay. You can have crustaceans seafood platter for one, and you go, 'Oh, there is no local on that.' But it will identify in the menu local barramundi and crumbed imported calamari. So they are just giving you a choice.

People can make those choices, and a lot of people, when they are making those choices, do think. It can be motivated by a whole range of motivations. It can be motivated by saying, 'I should support what is Australian.' It is a great thing to support what is Australian. And, indeed, supporting an industry is a wonderful motivation. Whilst I was not here to hear Senator Xenophon's contribution, I know he has recently quoted that the numbers of Australian jobs that this sector can increase by is in the thousands. In this place, any opportunity to ensure that such a simple thing would create thousands more jobs in an industry where Bob Richards in the aquaculture industry can have more demand for his product and therefore employ more people would be a terrific thing indeed.

But there are other motivations. A lot of people want to know what they are eating, and they assume—and rightly assume—that if you are eating an Australian rock lobster or if you are eating an abalone or eating barramundi or eating a piece of whiting, it is a reasonable assumption to make in Australia that our food standards are such that you can have a very high level of confidence that this is the quality of the fish that I am being provided. I have to say we have come a long way in the seafood industry, perhaps because of many of the MasterChef type shows we have on television. It was an issue 20 years ago: do you buy a lamb chop or do you buy a whiting? And they would say, 'I'll buy the lamb chop because I actually know how to cook it. It's all very simple. It's not hard.' The whiting was a bit of a different issue. But now people are very interested in seafood. The culinary delights that we are exposed to on our television screens very regularly have excited people into taking a different approach to seafood.

Of course, many people also are motivated by health issues. They might ask, 'Why would I pick seafood? If I turn over the menu, they have some rump and some other stuff happening.' In my view, this is always less interesting. Seafood is very good for you. A number of types of seafood have a whole range of health benefits—and they are not only low in stuff that is bad for you. If you are on a seafood diet, you are on the best diet you can possibly have. But there is one other motivation, which is a really important motivation. I often tell this story. It is a real question when you sit down with a young lady, particularly if you have met her for the first time, and you are wondering if you should have the garlic prawns or the garlic bread.

An opposition senator interjecting—

With respect to the garlic prawns, people might be concerned about the sustainability of prawns. It is a really important issue. You are not sure if people are going to be wondering about the sustainability of it. So you say: 'Okay. I might be a bit worried about the prawns.' But I will tell you a little bit about bread. Do you know how we make bread? We knock down native forests. We knock down virgin pastures. We plant a non-endemic, really thirsty wheat. We manage that by making sure we spray insecticides that kill every insect—every single insect. We divert rivers to irrigate those sorts of things. We might even have sexy megafauna like kangaroos. We get a permit to shoot them to make sure they do not eat the wheat—and you think that the bread would be safer than the prawns! The prawn is managed in an Australian fishery that has turtle-excluding devices—devices that exclude fish and prawns of a certain size by square netting. We can demonstrate in Australia that, if I am eating a prawn or a whiting or some seafood from anywhere across Australia, it is sustainably managed. It is a really important part of the motivation for a lot of people now. They wonder if the prawn that they are eating is a sustainable prawn, or if, somehow, taking that prawn is going to affect the environment or the sustainability of seafood negatively.

The reason for that is, of course, that we have had a lot of real tragedies across the world. The desertification of some of the coastal areas of Asia—the total desertification, and permanent desertification, through inappropriate use of very low-lying land and the introduction of salt to aquaculture ponds. You can fly over areas of Vietnam and South-East Asia where that will never return. It is now a desert. It will never return, and there is nothing you can do to save that particular country. It was unknown at the time that that would happen. That obviously has had a real impact on the people who are aware of that and about their decisions. They want to make sure that if they are buying a vannamei prawn, for example, that it comes from a sustainable place. If they are not sure, they would like to know—and the place that you would like to know should be directly before you eat it on the menu, because that is when you make a choice.

As Senator Peris pointed out, Coles and others already have that in place. Their policy is that you need to ensure that all the seafood is labelled from the country of origin at the place of sale, as it is in Coles. As chair of the Australian Seafood Industry Council, I was very pleased to have that put in place right across the country as part of seafood labelling. It is really important. It is not only in Coles where you are buying raw product before you take it home and cook it, or processed product. Every single thing you buy now, in any outlet, that is not cooked already has to have a label that says what its country of origin is. This next step is very important, whether you are motivated by safety, in terms of food safety, by sustainability, or by the national interest of employing people of Australia. These are all very important processes. The challenge we have in this place is, while it is not quite like traffic regulations, it is not a matter that this parliament would normally be dealing with. However, I support very much Senator Xenophon's approach to this. It comes out of frustration, which I share and everyone shares. We need to bring this to a point where, if the states and territories are not prepared to act on behalf of Australia and Australians in our national interest, then we need to send a very clear signal that that is what they should be doing. If we can, we should.

I was not here for the whole debate, but I understand that there are a number of technical issues. I would probably make an argument that this is about Australian interest not necessarily about foreign interest and New Zealanders and the others. Without offending them, I would make that case. I commend the Senate for what it has been doing, but this legislation will not definitively provide what we want. FSANZ provides advice to MinCo, and then MinCo would make some other decisions, so we are still not actually defining this. I think there is another opportunity, and I understand that Senator Joyce has—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have demoted him! He is the minister!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Joyce! He has shifted. My apologies. I think that Minister Joyce is currently considering country of origin labelling more generally. I put on the record today that I will be doing everything I can to ensure that the country-of-origin labelling that is currently being considered under wide consultation across Australia for a whole range of different products, at least in the seafood industry is extended to provide an undertaking from states and territories to ensure that, when you pick up a menu, the menu indicates where the product comes from. This is going to be a significant change. I am hoping that by the time we come back in August, Senator Xenophon, this will be redundant, because it will already have been done under another process. I would like to commend you for your assistance in this matter. I would also like to commend all those other speakers who have supported it. It does seem like we have a rare outbreak of multipartisanship in this matter.

It is very, very important. To simply pick up a menu and know exactly what you are eating is, I think, something every Australian would say we should all be able to take for granted.

So, as to any of the notions of opposition, which are highly technical issues, I think we should leave those to where they are best discussed—in foreign affairs and those sorts of matters. But Australia does not join a treaty—Australia does not get into food standards—with the intention of ensuring that somehow this ties one hand behind our back when we are dealing with our own national interest. Fundamentally, I know that every single person in this place would feel that every decision we make in this place should be about our own national interest. So, as to most of those other matters that were discussed earlier, whilst they may be accurate, Australia has maintained and will always maintain our right to continue to provide leadership and advice and legislation that make for the best interests of Australians in this regard.

The labelling of seafood—which, to many, may not seem such a big deal—will have an absolutely inordinate impact on not only so much of the industry but also, particularly, people. People in the Northern Territory, when we first started out on this, were asking: 'How are we going to print new menus—do you know how much this is going to cost?' There was pushback in all sorts of ways. And, interestingly, it is actually those in the industry themselves who now believe that, without a doubt, this is the best thing they have ever done. One of the things they say is: 'We write "imported" here. But when I am down in South Australia, don't we know?' They are really quite excited. Some people make a decision, as to cost or something, when they look at a menu, and perhaps say, 'Yes, I will take that one; it is 90 per cent, but the other one does not have squid in it. So I am going to take some of the imported stuff as well.'

As to the states' and territories' perspectives, I genuinely have very little understanding about why their position has lasted for so long. I have not had a rational response from any of them, over many years—apart from, 'It's a bit hard.' And the restaurant lobby is cranky. I say: you should go and talk to the restaurant lobby in the Northern Territory. They are delighted. They are saying, 'Yes, it was a bit difficult at first, but we are in a new space and this new space is an incredibly good space to be in.' This is a place where people are delighted that they are informed. And, normally, when they ask, because they are now informed they have an interest. They ask, 'So, is this local barramundi?' They say, 'Yes; local.' And they ask, 'What does that mean?' They say, 'That comes from the Northern Territory.' So they have taken it upon themselves; it is not through legislation. Take rock lobster. We have two types of rock lobster that are endemic in Australia; we have the Western Australian rock lobster, and another down south in the southern sites in Australia. With rock lobster, they have actually gone further, because people are interested in asking: 'Where does the rock lobster come from?' They say, 'We have different sorts.' They ask, 'Does the barramundi come from here? Where does it come from? Is it Western Australian barramundi, or from Queensland or the Northern Territory? And is it grown in an aquaculture farm or is it caught in the wild?' And suddenly you will find that the people who are in the restaurant are providing this information as part of an experience. Food is an experience, and part of that experience is now that, instead of staff saying, 'I can remember 20 things on the specials list'—which absolutely stunned me; I do not know how they remember them—those young men and women also understand about fisheries management, and about the importance of where the fish comes from, and they are prepared to answer questions on how sustainable it is, like: 'What about dugong? What about turtles? Are they affected? Are they not affected?' So, yes, it is about food, but it is also about ensuring that we feed the knowledge of young Australians—though not only young Australians; even Australians as old as I am actually eat seafood, but I think there is an emerging Australia that wants to know.

I heard Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution, and there is a thirst to know where things come from and to know what effect they have on the environment. As I have said, there are a number of motivations. Some of those motivations might be from self-interest: 'I want to make sure this is not going to hurt me. It is supposed to be a pleasant experience.' But I think that one of the most significant emerging issues at the moment is the issue that I want to be confident—whether it is a piece of beef, or a prawn or any of the other seafood products that we are going to get on our plate—that I am not contributing to degrading an environment somewhere else. People are thinking and talking about that. So there is going to be an insistence that our own environment in Australia is being better looked after.

I say very proudly: Australia does not have unmanaged fisheries. Some fisheries still need a lot of work, but at least we have moved into a leadership position in the world, of indicating that every single one of our fisheries has to be managed. And they are interesting—we have a lot of interesting mechanisms to manage our fisheries, and the fact that that story is now being told is very, very important. I would never have thought that my interest in fisheries management would be able to be promulgated around Australia—actually by waiters and waitresses and other people who work in restaurants. I think the more information that we have out there the better, not only about Australia's success but the relative success we have because we can say: 'Everything that you eat that comes out of the seafood industry is a product that you can safely eat in Australia, and you can safely say that it is not going to have a— (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, you have 12 seconds, should you wish to accept it.

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

I waive my 12 seconds.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then, as we are close enough to 11.52, the time for this debate has expired.