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

I have a number of questions in respect of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill and in relation to the second reading amendment which was just defeated. I outlined the basis of that amendment in my second reading contribution—in other words, that there be an administrative arrangement to determine whether labelling laws were being complied with. In particular, this matter was raised in the context of the inquiry into this bill. It seems to me that there ought to be an analysis and report on the benefit of an administrative mechanism which would give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims. In my additional comments in the Senate committee's report into this bill, I made a recommendation that legislation ought to be introduced to this effect.

What I respectfully put to the minister is that there is a real issue as to how the supply of inputs is determined to be Australian or not. In particular, Australian Made Campaign Limited, whilst it supported the removal of the 50 per cent cost test, noted:

… some concerns that it may result in adverse consequences for some Australian suppliers of inputs. This will occur where a manufacturer opts to source cheaper inputs offshore, knowing that it will not affect their capacity to make a Made in Australia claim. An example of this is a manufacturer of soft gel capsules who currently purchases gelatin from an Australian manufacturer because it assists them to meet the 50% threshold. The local packaging industry may also be impacted adversely by this change.

AMCL raised concerns that there was currently no mechanism by which manufacturers could obtain a definitive answer regarding country-of-origin claims, and this could result in companies being hesitant to make a claim for fear that competitors would challenge its validity. That is contained in the committee report. So that is a particular issue that I would be grateful if the minister could address. Australian Made Campaign Limited is well known and it made a very cogent submission, and there does not appear to be any administrative mechanism to deal with the concerns made by Australian Made Campaign Limited.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We acknowledge the need to improve the certainty around labelling requirements—that is why we are making these changes to the country-of-origin safe harbour defences, which are meant to address some of the concerns of business. We have revised the safe harbour provisions to clarify and simplify the rules for making claims about where goods are made and to expand the resources available to business. The ACCC will be releasing improved guidance material on country-of-origin labelling under Australian Consumer Law and on its approach to enforcement. We have also developed an online decision tool which assists food businesses to identify and download appropriate labels for their products under the new country-of-origin labelling information standard. The changes proposed by the government have been informed by extensive consultation and by a regulation impact statement. Under an intergovernmental agreement, all these proposals for change must be agreed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories—it is a bit like the GST. The Commonwealth cannot make changes to Australian Consumer Law without going through that lengthy process again.

Lastly, it is important to note that the new arrangements put forward in this bill and the new information standard will be reviewed two years after the end of the transition period. This will provide the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of these reforms in meeting their objectives. Certainly on behalf of the government I am willing to give you undertakings in relation to this review. Obviously we want to monitor this and make it successful. The fact that parties on all sides think that this is a good way to go and that this is a good start is very encouraging to me. I do not believe, at this stage, that we have adequately looked at the costs and benefits of what Senator Xenophon has proposed, but I believe we are giving assistance to industry. Proper guidance in relation to safe harbours, as well as additional resources, should provide some comfort for them as they go through this process.

I have looked at the labelling. I think it looks good and I think it is much easier to understand. We are talking here about substantial transformation; we are not talking about slicing and dicing and making some change in the canning. We are putting a lot of resources, including an advertising campaign, into informing consumers and businesses about how this is going to operate.

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

I thank the minister for his answer, but there was a concern from Australian Made Campaign Limited about uncertainty in terms of whether a claim could be made or not. The minister did make reference to some of the matters. Could he give some particularity on the types of resources that would be employed here and on whether the guidance tools—the online mechanisms that he referred to—would have any administrative force or give any protection to manufacturers? It would be short of an administrative mechanism or a natural determination as such—it seems to be a web tool that would give some guidance. What would happen if a manufacturer goes online, ticks all the boxes and it comes up as saying that they have reached this threshold, but then they are involved in a legal dispute, perhaps even with the ACCC? What protection do they have from that?

The other issue—this is not a trick question; this is a genuine question that I seek guidance from the minister on—is what are the fundamental differences on substantial transformation. Given that you say the previous regime, the 51 per cent, does not include slicing and dicing, can you give some detail to crystallise what the key differences are so that there is some greater meaning in terms of what Australian made actually means?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the first question, I would have to say that the safe harbour defences are designed exactly for that purpose: to give confidence to companies that, if they are doing the right thing and they are putting the labels on in the right way, they are protected. It is important to understand that. In relation to the second question, the best I can do is refer you to some of the material that is being provided in relation to the various types of products, how they could be packaged and what that would mean.

For example, in the case of ham, the critical ingredients in the brine mix required for curing the pork to form ham or similar products are not available in Australia and must be imported. So, as long as the ham is there, it can be 100 per cent Australian. If it is made in Australia from 96 per cent Australian pork and water with imported brine mix: 'Made or packed in Australia from at least 96 per cent Australian ingredients'. If it is made in Australia from imported pork and brine mix with Australian water accounting for 20 per cent of ongoing weight only: 'Made in Australia from at least 20 per cent ingredients'. If a ham is made in Denmark, imported into Australia and then sliced and packaged in blocks or slices for retail sale in Australia: 'Made in Denmark' or 'Made in Denmark, packed in Australia'. If a ham is made and packed in a single overseas country—for example, Canada—and then imported into Australia for retail sale: 'Made in Canada'. If the ham made in one overseas country—it could be Canada again—and is imported into and packed in another overseas country, for example, the USA, the above label can still be used or 'Made in Canada, packed in the United States of America'.

Making pork into ham is a substantial transformation, as the pork and ham are identified as fundamentally different products. Most brine mixes used to make ham combine critical ingredients—sugars, salts, nitrates, flavours—from different countries. The brine mix is added to local water to form a solution of varying strengths. The solution is then injected into the pork and left to cure for varying periods, turning it into ham.

There are a whole series of these examples—we can go through them—which will illustrate the proposition. But let me come back to the Australian Made Campaign, because I think that is an important point. In a case like that, I can engage directly with the Australian Made Campaign people and sort out the way forward in terms of the materials we are going to be providing and the use of the online decision tool. As I said before, there will be information campaigns and all the rest of it. There may be elements at the margin where a question may be raised, but if we are going to have a period of providing information we can work much of this out.

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

I do want to go through some of these issues. I hope you do not find it tedious, but I think this is important. The Australian Made Campaign Limited raised a number of points. Their submission to the Senate inquiry states:

While we support the changes embodied in the Bill overall, we have ongoing concerns about the lack of objectivity in the key criteria and the absence of definitions of key concepts.

The submission further states:

AMCL has previously expressed our concern that the terms "significant ingredient" and "significant component" continue to be undefined in the legislation. While the ACCC has in the past provided some guidance on the meaning of these terms, our experience has been that businesses continue to struggle with practical application of this test.

…      …   …

AMCL strongly recommends that the Bill provide greater clarity around these key concepts. For example, a "significant ingredient" could be defined as any ingredient excluding preservatives, food processing aids, food colouring, etc. In the absence of a definition within the legislation, extensive guidance is required with examples from a range of industries.

The minister gave a helpful example about ham and brine—and he was making me hungry talking about it!—but I think it is important that we deal with the very reasonable request from the Australian Made Campaign Limited.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points. Firstly, let me clarify that the ACCC is providing guidance. It is guidance that they are prepared to stand by—that is the important point. I have not interacted with the Australian Made Campaign. I am advised that they were consulted in arriving at examples. Sometimes you have to look at the glass as being half full rather than half empty. We may not get perfection today—

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

Where was the glass made?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, whether it was plastic or it was made from proper glass—sand and silica—we will see! The point is this: we can proceed on the basis that most people in this chamber believe is a fair basis on which to go forward. On the way, if issues arise, there is a two-year monitoring period. I do not believe that in that time substantial harm will be done to Australian industry if there has to be some sort of tweaking of the examples we are talking about or their interpretation. The ACCC is fully onside, and I am happy to interact further with the Australian Made Campaign on any outstanding concerns. As I said before, they were consulted in arriving at examples.

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

I am not suggesting that the glass is not half full; I just want to make sure it is an Australian glass with Australian water in it. I want to put this to the minister. I support the legislation. I believe it should go further, but I support it. The Australian Made Campaign Limited has reasonable concerns. Their submission states:

Definition of 'substantial transformation'

AMCL's principal concern in this area is that both the current and the proposed definition of 'substantial transformation' are very far from providing a clear and objective criterion against which to assess claims. The phrase "fundamentally different in identity, nature or essential character" is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

AMCL argue for that simple administrative mechanism. The minister says that there is a website and that there will be guidelines from the ACCC, but can the minister assure us that the claims that are made about Australian made, with the new substantial transformation test, will be robust? How do you resolve a dispute? If a manufacturer goes to the ACCC saying, 'We want to make this claim,' it is not the ACCC's job to make a determination for them. I do not think that is the way the ACCC operates unless they are able to in the context of this legislation.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points. The first is that the ACCC will be providing guidance. As I said before, there will be safe harbour defences. I do not want us to have to stop the process at this stage and go back to the states and territories and undo the progress we have made to date. I really think it is important for us to bed down what we have got. The only way we can improve on this is to implement it and see how it goes. I think that is really important.

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

I thank the minister for his answer and the spirit in which he gave it. I just make the point that reasonable concerns were raised by the Australian Made Campaign Limited, and I do not think they have been addressed adequately. I accept what the minister says—let's give it a go. I think he could have been more rigorous. Before I move my amendment, I want to ask something of the minister. I think Senator Macdonald was going to sing his praises earlier on today, and I was happy for him to do so.

There has been a long saga over seafood labelling. When you buy fresh seafood in supermarkets or at fishmongers, they tell you where it comes from. But in the context of food labelling, if you go to a seafood restaurant or your local takeaway fish and chip shop, even though it might be right next door to the supermarket, 10 metres away, it seems that magically the requirements for labelling disappear. Senators from all sides of the chamber in the last parliament supported reforms based on the Northern Territory reforms to give that information to consumers. This bill does not touch on that.

In the context of labelling for cooked seafood, can the minister indicate, for the many millions of Australians who regularly enjoy their seafood in fish and chip shops, restaurants and takeaway shops, whether the government is planning to bring about reforms based broadly on the very successful Northern Territory laws? By the way, the evidence from the seafood industry is that many thousands of jobs would be created. I think there were 3,000 jobs in one sector alone. The prawn fishers say it would make a very big difference to their job numbers if we had this key reform in seafood labelling laws.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of points. The first is that I discovered when I inherited the portfolio that my assistant minister is a very capable person. There has been a working group set up to look at options around country-of-origin labelling for seafood, and he has written to key stakeholders seeking their views and further information in relation to consumer access to information for seafood sold in the food-service environment. That is being followed up, and stakeholders have been asked to respond by 9 March, and the working group will then review this information and consider the next steps.

I go back to where I started. This is a process that is Commonwealth and state. Yes, you mentioned what the Territory has done, and the Territory can be an exemplar on many things, I am sure. But we have worked this through with the Commonwealth and with the states. We have had extensive consultation and a regulation impact statement et cetera, so the new arrangements put forward in this bill and the new information standard are going to be reviewed two years after the end of the transition period. And this will be an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of these reforms in meeting their objectives.

In the meantime, I have not had the opportunity as yet to meet with people like the Australian Made Campaign and get it directly from the horse's mouth or pick up whatever recommendations there may be from the assistant minister on seafood.

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

I am pleased. I had discussions with Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, although I am not sure whether he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time that did not seem to go as far as I wanted. Can the minister indicate, as a matter of principle, what is his and his government's view? As a matter of principle, should Australian consumers who go to the supermarket and know where their seafood comes from also have that right and degree of information when they go into a fish and chip shop or a restaurant? Should they know at the very least whether it is local Australian seafood or imported?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a matter of principle I want consumers to have as much information as possible. There is always a bit of a debate about how you provide that information. You can walk into a restaurant and, when you see barramundi on the menu, ask, 'Where is this barramundi from? Is it from the Territory? Is it from overseas?' If you see spaghetti marinara on the menu, you can say, 'Where are the prawns from?' You can do that. If you are telling me you do not necessarily trust what the waiter or the restaurateur will say and you want that somehow with the imprimatur of a third-party, all I can say is that my capable assistant minister is looking into these issues.

All I want to do today is progress the agreement we have got in this chamber and use that as a basis for implementing these reforms, getting them out there and getting an information campaign going. Then we are on the exciting road of more and more information available to people through their labels. And then we are on the exciting road of working out where there are any problems and how we improve on where we are going. This is a journey; it is not a destination.

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

I hope this is an exciting road, and not one of those never-ending roundabouts from one of those Road Runner cartoons. I hope we are ending up at a destination. I am not quite sure whether the minister actually supports the principle that if you buy seafood at a restaurant or a takeaway fish and chip shop, you should know whether it is local or imported, as in the Northern Territory. The answer seemed to be ambiguous.

I move the amendment on sheet 7951 standing in my name and the names of Senator Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Griff:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Subparagraph 224(1)(a)(x) of Schedule 2

Omit "notices); or", substitute "notices);".

1B At the end of paragraph 224(1)(a) of Schedule 2

Add:

(xi) section 258A(3) (which is about notifying the country of origin of certain food ingredients); or

1C Subsection 224(3) of Schedule 2 (at the end of the table)

Add:

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 34), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 At the end of Part 5 -3 of Schedule 2

Add:

258A Notifying the country of origin of certain food ingredients

(1) This section applies in relation to a type of food if:

(a) food of that type is supplied or offered for supply in Australia in a reporting period:

(i) for retail sale; or

(ii) as suitable for retail sale without any further processing, packaging or labelling; and

(b) an ingredient of the food is not exclusively of Australian origin; and

(c) the country of origin of the ingredient is not identified on the food's label.

(2) However, this section does not apply in relation to a type of food if the food:

(a) is sold to the public for immediate consumption by any of the following:

(i) a restaurant;

(ii) a canteen;

(iii) a school;

(iv) a caterer or a self-catering institution;

(v) a prison;

(vi) a hospital or a medical institution (within the meaning of section 1.1.2—7 of the Food Standards Code); or

(b) was made and packaged on the premises where it is sold; or

(c) is delivered, packaged and ready for consumption, at the express order of the purchaser (other than when the food is sold from a vending machine);

(d) is sold at a fund-raising event; or

(e) is food for special medical purposes (within the meaning of section 1.1.2—5 of the Food Standards Code).

(3) The manufacturer of the type of food must, within 1 month after the end of the reporting period, notify the Secretary of the Department, for each ingredient of the food which is not exclusively of Australian origin, of:

(a) the country or countries of origin; and

(b) if there is more than one country of origin of the ingredient during the reporting period—the average proportion by weight of the ingredient from each country of origin over the reporting period.

Note: A pecuniary penalty may be imposed for a contravention of this subsection.

(4) A notification under subsection (3) must be in the form and in the manner approved by the Secretary in writing.

(5) The Secretary of the Department must publish information notified under subsection (3) on the Department's website.

(6) In this section:

food has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

Food Standards Code means theAustralia New Zealand Food Standards Code within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

reporting period means a period of 6 months starting on 1 January or 1 July.

type: food is of the same type if the food has:

(a) the same manufacturer; and

(b) substantially the same ingredients; and

(c) substantially the same labelling (disregarding any reference to quantities).

7 Application

The amendment made by item 6 applies in relation to reporting periods commencing on or after the day this Schedule commences.

This amendment is fairly straightforward one. One of the complaints made by the Australian Food and Grocery Council and others in the past about mandatory country-of-origin labelling laws is that there are costs involved. Once you label something, if the ingredients change because of seasonal variations or for whatever reason, it is very expensive to change labels. What this amendment seeks to do—a sort of belts and braces approach to the legislation that is before us—in addition to what this bill provides for is to go another step. It basically says that there must be notification online of reporting country of origin imported ingredients to ensure that, at the end of the reporting period—every six months—they must notify the secretary of the department of each ingredient of the food that is not exclusively of Australian origin and the country or countries of origin, and, if there is more than one country of origin of the ingredient during the reporting period, the average proportion by weight of the ingredient from each country of origin over the reporting period. This ensures that it is published online. It means that the information can be published in an easily accessible form and it does not have the burden that the industry has referred to of having to change labels, which can be very costly and, with production lines and the like, is itself quite time consuming.

Effectively, this is using the internet for a purpose to empower consumers. It means that every six months—for instance, for orange juice—if there was a shift from 30 per cent Brazilian concentrate to 70 per cent concentrate or if it was 100 per cent Australian juice, we get to know about it. Right now, this bill, even though it is an improvement on the current laws, does not give that level of detail. It does not give consumers details of where that ingredient comes from and what percentage of it is Australian or indeed imported.

That in essence is what this amendment is about. I can indicate that I will be seeking to divide on this in the absence of any clear commitments from the government that it will progress this issue. But I look forward to the minister's response in respect of this. It is something I foreshadowed a number of months ago in the committee report where I set out these issues.

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

The Labor Party does not support Senator Xenophon's amendment to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I indicated to the minister that we would facilitate passage of this bill, so I will not be speaking at length on this question. I do have a serious matter that I do want addressed, and I will just explain to Senator Xenophon: the proposal you have advanced is, I understand, based on a sincere commitment to the strengthening of the regulatory regime, and I appreciate the intent of your sentiments in that regard. However, the moves to make the country of origin labelling more flexible, more digitalised, are of course something that both industry and consumers have more options on, and I think this bill does provide us with an opportunity to genuinely improve the amount of information that is available. I am also highly conscious of the fact that the minister has indicated that in terms of this particular regulation there is a requirement for Commonwealth-state agreement.

We are supporting these reforms, but we do not believe that the arrangements this bill puts in place are perfect. Many further improvements are required. I have been spending more and more time in the food industry's processing plants in this country. Recently I visited the Australian smallgoods food manufacturer Bertocchi. Bertocchi is a major manufacturing employer in Melbourne's north and is making significant investments in plant and new equipment. When those investments are completed there will be something like 700 people on the payroll at Bertocchi. It is the third largest smallgoods manufacturer in the country. This is exactly the sort of investment we need, especially in Victoria, given what is happening with the automotive industry.

Food manufacturers like Bertocchi work in a highly regulated industry, and changes to labelling have very serious impacts on their costs of doing business. I have spoken to the company about their concerns and the need for greater flexibility. I have raised these concerns with the minister, and I want to thank the minister for facilitating access to the department at senior officer level and through AusIndustry. There are a range of issues that Bertocchi needs assistance on, which can best be provided by direct contact with serious people within the department.

The point here, though, is that the proposal Senator Xenophon has advanced to us today does not solve the problems for Bertocchi. Changes to the country of origin labelling which are already in place are the result of very extensive consultation with industry and consumers as well as state and federal governments, and I do not think we can step outside that process. The circumventing of this process with new reporting requirements, additional reporting requirements, introduced at the 11th hour is not an advisable way to be introducing regulations of this importance, particularly regulations that have such wide-ranging and potentially negative impacts on Australian food manufacturers—and, I might suggest, with limited benefit to consumers.

I note the minister's statements reflected in the explanatory memorandum in regard to the review process after two years. If the changes to the reporting requirement are needed, I think the review process provides us with an opportunity to secure further changes in a well thought out, coherent way. But my question really goes to this: Minister, you have made some assurances, which I appreciate, but I really think it is appropriate that you outline to the chamber what this review mechanism is—what do you have in mind? How will the process be managed? How will you be able to ensure through any such process that the regulatory system will be genuinely flexible and the best practice for Australian manufacturers such as Bertocchi? What precisely do you have in mind in regard to the review? How are you going to fund it, and what actually is the process of engagement with industry?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of points to begin with. The first is: in terms of the review process, I had in mind an informal process which involved dealing with the stakeholders. I was not going to set up a formalised working group with a fancy name and give it a big budget because I think this is an ongoing process. As I said before, there will be a review at the end of two years but within the two years there is going to be scope to be talking to people, including the Australian Made Campaign, about how this goes forward. I am happy to look at a more formal process. If that is something the shadow minister and others think would be a good thing, I am happy to discuss that further.

It will also have to go back to COAG in due course because we have come at this through a Commonwealth-state process. There will be a regulatory impact statement under Australian consumer law; there will be mechanisms. But I am happy to talk about this further. Having opened this can of worms, if you like, it is clear—and the Bertocchi the example that you use is an example of this—that there are issues where more flexibility is required and so we are acting in a way which promotes the needs of Australian enterprises. I accept that. I am willing to consult further on what the review process will be, but it will also involve that Commonwealth-state mechanism in due course.

In relation to what Senator Xenophon has said, again, I appreciate the spirit in which he has made those points. The regulation impact statement which was provided in the explanatory memorandum explored the relative importance to consumers of disclosing the origin of specific ingredients and the burden to business of responding to such a requirement. It concluded that consumers prefer to see origin information on labels, not digitally, and that they value knowing the Australian content of products more highly than the origin of specific ingredients. The regulation impact statement also concluded that it is not currently feasible for businesses in the food industry to make origin information on specific or all ingredients available digitally, especially for small and micro producers. I think this is where my concern is. It is one thing to be talking about a multinational corporation which has all sorts of resources to do all sorts of things and can finance all sorts of overheads, but in the case of the smaller producers in particular—and I think this is where the flexibility point comes in—we have to have some recognition of their particular needs. However, we will be working with the food business to examine mechanisms for improving the digital infrastructure of the food industry over time. From my point of view, it is more the SMEs which are an issue in that regard. We will continue to look at ways through which we can improve consumer access to the information that matters to them.

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

I thank the minister for his response and Senator Carr for his contribution. I make this point: companies such as the very successful smallgoods company in Victoria that Senator Carr referred to—and I wish them every success and I hope they grow along with food processing companies across the nation—know what is in their food. They know what they have put in there and they ought to know as a matter of course where that ingredient comes from. That is not a difficult or onerous requirement. I am suggesting that consumers do prefer to see basic information on their labels when they are making a buying decision in the supermarket. But I think it could change the culture of some food processors, particularly multinational processors, if they were required to publish this information. It would not be overly onerous. There could be, for instance, a minimum threshold on the turnover of the business if there is a concern about administrative burdens, but it would actually empower consumers in a significant way to have more information than they otherwise would have. I ask the minister: given there will be a review, will the review include consideration of providing further information online and the feasibility of doing so in the context of that review? In other words, are the terms of the review set? If not, how will that be set? Does the minister have the ability to ensure that this particular issue of providing further information online on a regular basis is something that will be considered as part of the review?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First and foremost, on the terms of the review, I am happy to consult. Let me make that clear, if I have not make that clear already. There will obviously be the Commonwealth-state process. I will consult interested parties in the chamber, or whoever, on the terms. As I said before, this is a work in progress and we will also be working with the food business to examine mechanisms for improving the digital infrastructure of the food industry over time, which will make it easier, particularly for the smaller companies and players in this space, to do what Senator Xenophon is talking about. This is a work in progress. I am happy to take that on board.

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

I have heard the phrase 'take it on board' many times, not from the minister. You can take something on board and then you can throw it off board. Presumably the review will be wide-ranging. Will the review include enhancing information to consumers via a digital platform and requiring some more regular reporting?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise if I was not sufficiently clear. My point was that the review would address these matters, including the costs and benefits of what could be done in the context of the government continuing to work with stakeholders in the industry to improve the digitalisation of the industry. The answer is a 'yes'.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendment. Overall, we still believe that we have some way to go until we have the best country-of-origin labelling that we need in this country. We feel that there is still room for improvement. We are going to be supporting the bill overall because we think that what has been put forward is a step forward and it is an improvement. It is in that spirit as well that we are supporting Senator Xenophon's amendment. We do not think it is perfect; we think it is probably a reasonable amount of work. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating to see how much value it really would be to consumers.

I do not accept the position being put that it would be too much of a regulatory burden. As Senator Xenophon has pointed out, food manufacturers know where their ingredients come from and, if they do not, they need to know, because they need to have that accountability in the supply chain. So, given that they are paying their bills and know that they bought X-kilograms of walnuts from California or whatever it is, I do not think it is going to be too much for that to be reported in a manner which then gives more transparency and accountability to the Australian consumer and to see that what is on the labels of food that a consumer is buying is reflected and true over a period of time.

I think we are on a journey in terms of this country-of-origin labelling. If we keep on working at it, we will get there and eventually end up with labelling so that we have that transparency and consumers know what they are buying to eat. It does mean that it is going to place more focus on people knowing what they are eating and, because of that, they will be paying more attention to it. I think it will support people in making healthier and more sustainable food choices. This legislation is heading us in that direction. We have still got a way to go, but I think Senator Xenophon's amendment is perhaps going to be only a small step forward to getting some legislation that meets the requirements of healthy, sustainable food consumption in Australia.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will briefly make two points. The first is that we all accept the importance of providing this sort of information, given the context in which the recent reforms have come about. It really goes to very basic issues for all of us as human beings, wanting to be assured that what we are eating is, as you say, Senator Rice, safe; it is the best; and, where possible, we are also supporting local industry in a non-distorting way, if I can put it like that. I accept all of that.

I also accept the need to provide more information rather than less where that is feasible and where we are not providing undue regulatory burdens. I think we agree on that. What you are really saying is that you do not believe the regulatory burden is as great as some people may be making out. We are going to test that in the review period as we look at the further digitisation of the food industry. I think that is going to be very important. As I said before in response to Senator Xenophon, we will be consulting people on the terms of the review, and that will obviously include the Greens as well.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the two amendments moved by Senator Xenophon on sheet 7951 be agreed to.