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

Labor supports this bill because it provides certainty for industry that safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with new country of origin labelling requirements. This will help protect enterprises, particularly Australian food manufacturers, make claims under the new mandatory labelling requirements that came into effect on 1 July 2016. This issue called for a bipartisanship approach in taking steps to resolve a longstanding problem, and that is what has happened. That said, sometimes on the way to this resolution we in the opposition have been bemused by the antics of some members of the government, especially the Deputy Prime Minister.

The basic problem these reforms address was set out clearly in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, tabled in October 2014. The committee recommended that labelling standards should be changed to make it easier for consumers to identify the sources of food products and the places where they are processed—the perfectly reasonable proposition that people know where their food has come from. The wording on many labels, 'Made in Australia using local and imported ingredients', clearly did not do that.

As senators will remember, however, what actually spurred the government into action was a food contamination scare in February 2015, after the report had been received. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services announced that two brands of frozen berries sold in supermarkets had been linked to multiple cases of hepatitis A. The company that produced both brands obtained its berries from Chile and China, and processed them in China's Shandong province. Pictures emerged of excrement-clogged factories in Shandong, and in the subsequent media frenzy and consumer panic the careful wording of the Victorian announcement was usually ignored.

What the Victorian department said was that ingesting frozen berries was the only common link between the hepatitis cases. It did not claim that ingesting contaminated berries had caused all the cases. This fine distinction vanished completely when the then Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, the agriculture minister, Mr Joyce, and the then industry minister, Mr Macfarlane, called a media conference. They announced that a working party of ministers would consider the House of Representatives' report on food labelling. Mr Joyce blithely ignored the fact that the report had been presented to the government before the contamination scare, without being acted upon. He said, 'It's great to be part of a government that's actually going to do something.' On Channel 9's Today program he spoke more directly to the fears that the contaminated berries scare had aroused in consumers. He said, 'Buy Australian and save yourself a pain in the guts.'

Labor agrees that the best way of ensuring that packaged food is of acceptable quality is to buy Australian. I do it for a lot of other reasons as well—that is why I have been wearing this 'Made in Australia' badge for many, many years. We in the Labor Party have supported the adoption of the new system of food labels. It must be acknowledged that there are still other issues to be resolved, some of which have been raised in the original House of Representatives report. The gold kangaroo in a green triangle, above a filled-in or partly filled-in gold bar code, can tell consumers how much, if any, of the product has been grown and processed in Australia. This kind of labelling does not provide information about anywhere else the product might have come from. If the new system had applied at the time of the frozen berries scare, consumers would have been none the wiser about the origin of the berries that became a matter of contention. Nonetheless, the system is better than what it replaced, because when the Government was not diverted by trying to score points on this issue, as it did during the berries scare and again in the election campaign, it has actually done the right thing. It consulted stakeholders in the food industry and the state and territory governments. That is what we urged the governments to do when we offered support for the reform of food labelling in February last year.

The bill now before the Senate, like the new labelling requirements that came into force in July, is a result of those consultations. The new labelling requirements have been endorsed by state ministers for consumer affairs, the Food and Grocery Council, AUSVEG, the National Farmers' Federation and the consumer advocacy group Choice. These bodies have also supported the present bill, which alters the 'safe harbour' provisions of the Australian consumer law for businesses making country-of-origin claims. Safe harbour provisions are intended to give businesses certainty about the claims they can make without infringing consumer law. If a business makes a country-of-origin claim for its product, and that claim is alleged to be false or deceptive, the business has an automatic defence if it can show that the product meets the conditions laid down in the safe-harbour provisions.

Under the existing law, for a business to rely on this protection either the goods have to be substantially transformed in the place that is claimed as the country of origin or at least 50 per cent of the total costs of production must have occurred in that country. This bill strengthens the safe-harbour protections for food products by declaring the meaning of 'substantial transformation.' It removes the 50 per cent cost of production test, which is redundant now that food labels show the proportion of Australian ingredients. These are sensible changes that complement the new labelling system.

Labor continues to support this reform process, but we remind the government that the process of reform does not end with this bill. The government could go further and give full consideration to the bipartisan House of Representatives report that was originally tabled in 2014. We also urge the government to end its neglect of biosecurity and of Australia's manufacturing sector, of which food processing is such an important part, especially in regional areas.

Buying Australian will always be the best way for consumers to have confidence in the quality of food products. The maintenance of a vigorous manufacturing sector is the best way of ensuring that Australians will have high-skill, high-wage jobs and that the economy becomes less reliant on the vagaries of commodity exports.

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

I rise today to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. The Greens have been leading the way on country-of-origin labelling law for years. We want to see labelling laws that work for Australians—that work for Australian farmers, manufacturers and consumers. Since 1998 we have been working with the industry to develop our proposal to make country-of-origin labelling mandatory for all packaged and unpackaged food sold in Australia. The Greens' proposal since that time would simplify country-of-origin labels to three basic claims: something has to be either made in Australia, grown in Australia or manufactured in Australia.

We want to encourage companies to highlight any significant local ingredients. This bill does not do that, but it does go some way to simplifying the system that we currently have. That is important, because we know that Australians want to do the right thing when they are buying their food. When they are standing there in the supermarket aisle and trying to choose between this tin of tomatoes and that one, they want to be able to know what it means. When we are at the supermarket and see 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients', no wonder many of us feel confused. To make an informed choice the community needs clear information about where their food is coming from. How much of the product is local? Was it all made in Australia, and does that change depending on what season it is made in?

The amendments that we are discussing today are primarily intended to simplify the tests used to justify claims like 'made in' by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and removing the confusing 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. This legislation is putting in place a system so that if a business makes a country-of-origin claim for a product and it is alleged to be misleading, deceptive or false, that business has an automatic defence to the allegation if it can show that the product meets the safe harbour defence for that claim. The bill also creates a new safe harbour defence for products labelled in accordance with information standards, so that businesses can have more certainty about the labelling they can make without breaking the law. So, as far as these changes go, we support the legislation before the chamber today. However, I would like to quickly mention the important work of the Australian Greens on country-of-origin labelling and the ongoing fight for transparency and the consumer right to know, particularly in regard to food and agriculture products. Clearer food labelling is good for public health, the environment and local farmers. It gives them the extra tool to enable them to compete in our globalised marketplace. The Greens recognise that food-labelling laws should not be dictated by global food and beverage giants or the big corporations in the city. If you are a local Australian farmer working with your local co-op, you do not have the clout or power that those global corporations have. But that does not mean that your concerns should be considered to be less significant than the claims that are being put by the global manufacturers.

If we are better informed about where our food is coming from, we can trust that it is going to be top-quality produce that we know we can rely on from Australian food producers. We can be clear about where internationally sourced ingredients have come from so that you can make an informed choice. You can decide that, no, you do not want to be buying produce from somewhere that you are a bit suspicious of. You can make the choice and say, 'No. I would prefer to pay that little bit extra'—to be supporting Australian farmers, to be supporting food production that you know is being well regulated and manufactured, with food being grown in a sustainable way. You know you can be supporting that farm production where you can be sure that there can be a spotlight on it, if required, to make sure it is being done in a sustainable and healthy way.

Having good country of origin labelling will also encourage people to consume more fresh produce. By thinking more about the origins of the food, we automatically eat in a way that is healthier and more ethical. So, again, if you are deciding about a cheap tin of tomatoes that you have suspicions about because of where it has come from, you can decide maybe it would be better to buy the fresh tomatoes that you know have come from the market garden only tens of kilometres away. You know that you can have more confidence in the health and sustainability of how that food is being produced.

Also, by giving consumers information about where their food has come from and by encouraging locally produced produce to be squarely compared with other produce, it means it is much more likely that consumers are going to decide that, yes, it is worth paying what may be just a little bit extra to buy that Australian produce. That means it is going to be contributing to reducing the pollution that causes global warming. If we are buying more locally produced produce we are not flying ingredients and food from the other side of the world and paying the transport costs involved in that. Having really good food labelling helps us to better understand how far our food ingredients have travelled to our plates.

One of the examples I often use is: when I am buying lentils and you have two packets of lentils on the shelves and you have to get out your glasses to look at the difference between these lentils. With the lentils grown in Canada, I think, 'Fine. Terrific. People in Canada, go ahead and eat those lentils.' For people in the US, it would be appropriate to eat those lentils. If, on the other hand, you look the next little bit along the shelf and you have exactly the same product that is made in Australia, I will always go for that made-in-Australia product. For those sorts of choices, by giving information to consumers, you have the ability to be really supporting our local food-growing industries. So our farmers and our food producers will be the beneficiaries then of that strong, local demand.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but clearly there is further to go to make sure that our food is labelled clearly and more efficiently. As well as supporting this bill before the house today, we call on our colleagues to support the Greens plan for country-of-origin labelling so that we can create more sustainable local jobs and allow everybody to make more informed choices about choosing the food that they eat.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, altering country-of-origin labelling and safe harbour provisions under Australia consumer law. The main change that this bill makes is for the labels for most food that is grown, produced or made in Australia to include a logo—a kangaroo in a triangle symbol—as well as a bar chart and text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients. Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from. Labor supports this amendment. Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food. Labor remains willing to work with Mr Turnbull and his colleagues to improve our country-of-origin labelling requirements.

However, perhaps the Liberals should think more broadly about their neglect of biosecurity and Australian manufacturing, which is putting jobs at risk and taking our economy backwards. Come to think of it, this is not the only thing going backwards under this government. 2017 began for Malcolm Turnbull much the same as 2016 ended, with scandal, humiliation, disappointment and division. After what was a pretty unimpressive year, I think it is fair to say that Mr Turnbull and his Liberals really needed to put their tails between their legs and hit the reset button over the summer break. And there has been more. Of course, we had Senator Bernardi defecting from his government, the Liberal Party, yesterday. But here we are in the first parliamentary sitting week of 2017 and the government is still fumbling around, unable to figure out where they stand, what they stand for and which way is up. To be fair, there are some people out there who were inclined to cut Mr Turnbull some slack last year. He was finding his feet after limping across the 2016 election finish line, but it has been almost 18 months now since the Prime Minister knifed Mr Abbott in the back. Enough is enough. If Malcolm Turnbull has anything resembling a policy agenda or a plan for 2017, now would be a really good time to tell us about it.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Madam Deputy President: government senators are generally very generous to Senator Polley when she makes contributions in the Senate, but we are talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, which is a government bill, and I encourage the senator to come back to the issue before the Senate.

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

Thank you, Senator Smith. I am listening very carefully, and Senator Polley is addressing aspects of the bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After a very, very mediocre 2016, you would think that Mr Turnbull would have kicked off 2017 with a new agenda, a plan—a first draft, even. But, unfortunately, this was not the case. Mr Turnbull addressed the Press Club last Wednesday, and things just seemed to go from bad to worse for the Prime Minister after that speech, culminating, as we know, with Senator Bernardi defecting from the Liberal Party yesterday. So the circus continues.

I have to say it is a good thing for Mr Turnbull that there is not an election this year, because, having achieved so little since becoming Prime Minister, most of us are scratching our heads wondering what the point of this government is and what the good reason was for sending us to a double dissolution at the last election. We are all still wondering that. Support for Mr Turnbull's government is freefalling, their popularity is slipping, and I personally think that one good reason for that is that they are so out of touch. We know that everything they touch is stuffed up, so how can we rely on them to handle even a piece of legislation like this? In stark contrast to Labor, the Liberals have kicked off this year with no direction, no plan and, above all, no narrative. Mr Turnbull has said over and over that his government is a government of the 21st century, that it is agile and innovative and that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, but the only thing that resonates with people in Australia—particularly in my home state of Tasmania—the thing that they are utterly disappointed with, is this dithering and dysfunctional government. Mr Turnbull is a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many in the community, but there are so many people now who are utterly disappointed.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Madam Deputy President: I challenge Senator Polley to mention the words 'competition', 'consumer' or 'country of origin bill' just once in her contribution. She is a quarter of the way through now.

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

Thank you, Senator Smith. Senator Polley has indeed mentioned the bill. I am sure she is putting in some background and will get to the point, but I remind senators that they need to speak about the bill before us.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking about the bill and—as you said, Deputy President—I am putting it in the context of a government that is so out of touch and so dysfunctional. I know that this is a veiled attempt from those on the other side to give Mr Turnbull some cover. As I said in my speech last night, I am ashamed to sit in this chamber with a government that has attacked some of the most vulnerable people in the community—the people who this government has been hurting most in this country over the last summer period, with the dysfunction of the Centrelink robo-debt recovery crisis and the fact that this government is putting ordinary, everyday Australians who need a helping hand into the hands of debt collectors.

Senator Smith interjecting—

Then they came in here last night—and now we have them interjecting—trying to say that we support the rorting of Centrelink. There is nothing further from the truth, and that is such an insult to everyone in this chamber. There is not an Australian—except those who may be caught rorting—who does not believe that only those people who deserve to get Centrelink payments should have access to them. But, no, they continued to send out letters to innocent Australians—and we know, and the government are now very much aware, that 40 per cent of those letters were inaccurate. I spoke last night about the Tasmanians who have been caught up in this dysfunctional government's shambolic attempt to rein back money from those people who can least afford it. Once your name is on the debt collectors' database, it is extremely difficult to have it removed.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Madam Deputy President: the chamber has a number of conventions by which it is expected senators might operate. Call me conservative and old-fashioned perhaps, but speaking to the subject of the bill at hand, which relates to country-of-origin labelling, is hardly an unreasonable expectation. Senator Polley is not speaking in relation to the country-of-origin bill, in any way, shape or form, and I seek that you draw her attention to that and ask her to respond in relation to the bill.

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

Thank you, Minister. Senator Polley, I am sure that you are going to get back to the bill. You started off on the bill and I am sure you are heading back to the bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important that the Australian people be made aware of the significant dysfunction of this government, so, therefore, it does not really matter what legislation comes before—

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

The minister on a point of order.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, as you would be aware, ample opportunity for senators to engage in that sort of debate in this chamber is given throughout the day. This is a debate on a particular bill in relation to country-of-origin labelling. Senators are expected to be relevant to the bill in front of the chamber. The senator is not, in any way, shape or form, being relevant to the bill, and I seek your support to ensure that she is.

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

Thank you, Minister, you have made your point—as has the whip—on a number of occasions. I spoke to Senator Polley, as you heard. She was back on her feet for about two seconds before you intervened again.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is starkly out of touch with the community and has no plans for the future. We have a Prime Minister who has no vision and no economic plan whatsoever, but the government does not want to hear about it. The Australian people already know; what I am trying to do is put context into the legislation that is before us. We have these scandals that have been perpetrated by those on that side of the chamber. One of their colleagues, Senator Bernardi—who came into this Senate chamber at the same time as I did, in the 2005 class—obviously has little confidence in this government being able to bring any sort of legislation through this chamber.

But I do not want to be distracted from the issues that are confronting the Australian people and the fact that the government have failed to address the issues that have been raised with them in relation to the robo-debt system, with 170,000 letters and notices having gone out to everyday Australians. They do not want to hear about that, but I am going to continue, because, Madam Deputy President, you very well know that in the past those opposite have spoken many times on pieces of legislation and given context to the government's inability to govern this country. The government's shambolic system has wrongly targeted a 76-year-old Queenslander—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The senator is directly flouting your request to her to return to the legislation, which is of course undermining your authority in the chair.

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

I will determine whether my authority is being undermined, thank you, Minister. Senator Whish-Wilson?

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

Madam Deputy President, I might be able to add some information to this point of order. Seven minutes ago Senator Polley tweeted, 'About to speak in the Senate about the Turnbull government's shocking start to the year.' That is quite amazing considering she is 10 minutes into a speech, but I think she has put on public record that she is not speaking about the matter at hand.

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

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Polley, please continue your remarks, but if you could be more focused on the bill everyone in the chamber would appreciate that.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. Yes, it is an important piece of legislation that has come before us and it is a start in terms of the government being able to work with those in this chamber to bring about these changes. There is no doubt that, just as there has been a debacle over the Centrelink robo-debt issue, consumers are concerned about the origin of the food they are consuming. When we are talking about the quality of food and having global recognition for clean, green produce, there is no better place to represent this country than my home state of Tasmania.

I understand that the government are a bit twitchy and a bit concerned that anyone might be critical of them. Not only with respect to this piece of legislation but also from the agenda on today's Order of Business, we can see that the government are struggling. In anticipation of other people wanting to make a contribution to this debate, I will conclude my remarks.

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

Senator Smith?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I cannot help myself: it is worth noting that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill accounted for less than one minute of Senator Polley's 12-minute speech.

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

Thank you, Senator Smith. Senator Xenophon.

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

I indicate my support for the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill. This has really been a long and winding road. Back in 2008, in my first few months in the Senate, I managed to convince my then colleague Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Australian Greens, and Senator Barnaby Joyce from the Nationals to co-sponsor a bill on truth in country-of-origin labelling. We produced a minority report—it was effectively a dissenting report—when the major parties effectively said, 'We don't want to go down this path.' I think it says something about the nature of the issue when you can have both the Greens and the Nationals on a unity ticket co-sponsoring legislation, co-writing a minority report about the need for truth in labelling in this country. It has been a long time coming, but we have seen some real improvements in the system. However, I believe there is scope for more significant improvements, and I will speak to amendments in relation to that.

It is very clear that Australians want to buy Australian. In fact, a survey published in The Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago indicated overwhelmingly that Australians favour Australian made goods, things made here in Australia, and that sentiment is even stronger when it comes to the food that we eat. Multiple surveys have shown that Australians want to buy Australian products, products which use ingredients grown in Australia and which contribute to the Australian economy through jobs and the clean, green produce that Australia is so justifiably famous for. We know this through surveys going back many years. Back in 2005 an Auspoll survey found that 97 per cent of Australians wanted to have clear information on the country of origin of their foodstuffs. A 2009 survey found that 82.5 per cent of supermarket shoppers checked most of the time whether their foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetables, were Australian in origin. In other words, consumers are aware of this. We must have clear, simple, straightforward country-of-origin labelling laws so that consumers can make an informed choice when they are rushing through the supermarket. If they have toddlers or other children with them and they are in a mad rush, they want to get in and out of the supermarket, but they want to be able to make an informed choice as easily as possible.

I also think it is important to put into perspective that the 50 per cent production cost test, the substantial transformation test, has inherently been a failure. You can claim a product was made in Australia even though the majority of ingredients could have come from overseas. I am very grateful to my friend and constituent Ron Gray, a former citrus grower from Loxton in the Riverland, who has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of food labelling and the impact that poor food labelling has had on the citrus industry, which has shrunk over the years rather than expanded, as it should have, with so much of our citrus juice coming from Brazilian concentrate. Ron Gray made the point that the laws were actually killing off the citrus industry. You could have a fruit juice with 70 per cent Brazilian concentrate and a minority of Australian juice and you add the water and do the packaging, and that easily passes the 50 per cent substantial transformation test—and that is a disgrace. Ron Gray told me not so long ago, as he was winding up his citrus production in Loxton, that he sent fruit to a processing plant in Mildura across the border. The money he received for that fruit barely covered the cost of the transport. In other words, he got a zero net return for his fruit. That is a disgrace, and I hope this bill goes some way to rectifying it.

We know that in 2012, the inquiry by Senate Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector, chaired by former senator, Senator Colbeck, showed a number of anomalies that occur with food labelling in this country. Seafood labelling is an issue that is particularly prone to abuse. There are serious concerns about our current labelling regime, which allow foreign imports to be classified as 'Made in Australia'.

In its submission to this bill, the Australian Made Campaign Limited stated that overall it 'supports the removal of the 50 per cent cost test'. However, it noted some concerns that 'it may result in adverse consequences for some Australian suppliers of inputs'. It noted:

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 per cent threshold. The local packaging industry may also be impacted adversely by this change.

These are issues that ought to be fairly raised in the committee stages of this bill.

This issue was recognised in the committee report, and I think there is a need for greater guidance as to what does or does not constitute substantial transformation. The committee noted the concerns of the AMCL and that there was currently no mechanism by which manufacturers could obtain a definitive answer regarding country-of-origin claims and that this could result in companies being hesitant to make a claim for fear that competitors would challenge its validity. Whilst not making a submission on this bill, the consumer group CHOICE stated:

Unfortunately, the new system looks less useful for consumers wanting information about any of the 195 countries that are not Australia. For example, claims such as 'Made in Australia from imported ingredients' will still have you wondering where your food comes from …

That is one of the big flaws of this bill.

It is also important to ensure there is a mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims. There is no such mechanism in the current bill. It is something that needs to be prosecuted or explored in the committee stages. I will be moving a second reading amendment standing in my name, which adds, at the end of the motion, 'but the Senate calls on the government to undertake an analysis of the benefits of establishing an administrative mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims'. If we do not do that, this bill will only to half a job. It will be nowhere near as effective as it ought to be to give the truth in labelling and to give certainty to our food manufacturing sector.

We are seeing the decimation of manufacturing jobs in this country. In our auto sector, when Holden closes down on 20 October in South Australia and when Toyota closes down at about the same time and as car makers close down in Victoria, there will be tens of thousands of jobs lost. We need to have a plan B, and the food-processing sector has enormous potential to absorb a significant number of those job losses. It is also important, in the definition of 'substantial transformation', that we have an administrative mechanism similar to what exists in the United States, which will give manufacturers the ability to obtain a ruling on country-of-origin claims. That is something that, as I said, with the second reading amendment, needs to be explored.

I believe that this bill, on balance, does advance the issue of certainty in food labelling, but there is one other issue that I raised in my additional comments to this bill. There ought to be a mechanism for manufacturers to regularly disclose the percentage and country of origin of specific ingredients to the department of industry, for publication on its website. A lot of manufacturers will say, 'We can't do this. It's too complex. It's too difficult because we have to change our labels all the time.' There is a thing called the internet. If they are required to publish online to the department so that, every six months, consumers can establish exactly what the percentage of whatever ingredients are in there is from Australia or elsewhere then that will empower consumers. It will also give a lot of useful information to the media that can be publicised about which manufacturers are making every possible effort to deal with these issues. That is why I will be moving an amendment in that regard. If there is political will, it can and should be done to really strengthen the framework of this bill.

There is one final issue I wish to raise—that is, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. Senator Lambie famously kissed a barramundi—

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

It was very sweet!

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

a very sweet barramundi, in the context of raising awareness of that bill—as well as the awareness of a number of other crossbenchers! This bill relates to the labelling of seafood products. What is interesting is that if you buy seafood in a supermarket, it tells you which country it comes from. But if you buy seafood that has been cooked and prepared in the fish and chip shop or restaurant right next to the supermarket, you have no idea where it comes from; there is no requirement to label it.

The Northern Territory moved on this a number of years ago and it has been a great success. It has boosted jobs in the Territory, and we heard in evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that literally thousands of jobs will be created in our agriculture and seafood industries if this bill will—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could say who brought it into the supermarkets.

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

I think that was the coalition. Was that you?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I am not looking for personal praise.

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

I will acknowledge Senator Macdonald's passionate advocacy for the seafood sector.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will sing my own praises later!

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

He will sing his own praises—I am sure I wouldn't do justice for him!

What is interesting here is that it was a unanimous decision of the committee. It was a decision of crossbenchers, of the coalition and of the opposition to support this law. They actually said that we should just get on with it. The committee recommended that, with the bill being passed into law, the Commonwealth encourage the states and territories to comply with and enforce the revised standard.

This bill does not deal with that. It is something I have had discussions on with the Deputy Prime Minister, with the relevant minister and with Minister Nash. And I have been very disappointed that it has not been advanced. So, that is another reform that needs to be brought about.

With those comments, I support this bill, but I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the amendment for greater transparency every six months—which would not carry an unreasonable administrative burden—to get a commitment from the government to actually advance this, because if it does not then I think you will find that consumers will still feel that they are not getting the information they deserve. That is why this bill is so important, particularly in the context of Australians wanting to know what they are eating and where it comes from and also in the context of the impact it has on Australian jobs and our food processing sector and on Australian agriculture.

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name, which I foreshadowed in relation to the issue of standards and getting appropriate rulings from an administrative mechanism for food manufacturers:

At the end of the motion add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to undertake an analysis of the benefits of establishing an administrative mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on Country of Origin Labelling claims."

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

I rise to briefly speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 and in doing so I ask the same question everyone else is asking: why has this legislation taken so long, and why is it still incomplete to the standard it is required to be at? This is a classic example of why this parliament needs to better prioritise the legislative agenda and why Australia's media should report on the issues that are really important to average Australians.

This is a significant issue that deserves more attention than trendy issues like same-sex marriage. I am fed up with the amount of time and attention that is now being given to the same-sex marriage debate in this place and in mainstream media. A solution to same-sex marriage, Indigenous recognition, and euthanasia for the terminally ill is simple: we hold a referendum and two plebiscites on the day of the next federal election and hear what Australians have to say on these important issues of the conscience, without the exorbitant and onerous costs and without the interference of mainstream media. I believe there is an opportunity to put a private member's bill before the Senate which gives the people, at the next federal election, an opportunity to have their say on those three very important social and moral issues: same-sex marriage, Indigenous recognition, and euthanasia for the terminally ill. End of story—now let's get on with running this country and talking about matters which concern people in rural and regional areas, especially like where I am, on the north-west coast of Tasmania.

Stronger country of origin labelling has been an issue that has been around since Adam was a boy, and neither the Liberal-Nationals nor Labor can claim the moral high ground in this situation. The definitive report on this matter, according to the Parliamentary Library study, was the Blewett review. The library report says:

On 23 October 2009 the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council announced that former Australian Health Minister, Dr Neal Blewett AC, would head up the Panel which would undertake a comprehensive examination of food labelling law and policy.

On 28 January 2011 the review panel officially presented the final report entitled Labelling Logic to the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council.

The Blewett Review noted that there was a general level of consumer uncertainty about 'claims to the 'Australian-ness' of a product' and acknowledged that a Newspoll survey conducted in April 2010 reported that '63 per cent of respondents incorrectly identified the originating source of a product where the term 'Made in Australia' was used'. The Blewett Review concluded:

The confusion is compounded by the 'Australian owned' claim and by a flood of `Australian Made' logos... At the heart of the confusion is the 'Made in Australia' claim and the efforts of manufacturers to 'highlight the Australian-ness of their foods'.

The Blewett Review made a number of recommendations of direct relevance to country of origin in relation to food specifically:

. that mandatory country of origin labelling requirements for all food products be provided for in a specific consumer product information standard for food under the CCA rather than in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code)

. 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 and

. that for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific country of origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components (excluding water), be developed.

Government response to the review

Of the three above recommendations in relation to country of origin by the Blewett Review, the Government did not support two of them and merely 'noted' another (the recommendation to extend mandatory country of origin labelling requirements to all primary food products for retail sale).

So I, like many other Australians, am trying to work out why a government would spend all this money on a report which was basically ignored. Why? Was it a case of political donations unduly influencing good government policy? I note that a lot of effort has been put into the description of a 'Made in Australia' logo with a little kangaroo. I have to say, I think most of us do love Skippy.

I am more interested in making sure that a logo which screams 'Made in Tasmania' is given more attention. The Tasmanian brand is better than Australia's. My home state of Tasmania is renowned right around the world for its fresh produce. Our salmon is some of the best in the world, and our dairy products are second to none. And if you have not had a tender, medium rare Cape Grim steak yet, I tell you what, you have not lived. People travel from all over the world to Tasmania to experience the clean, green produce that only Tasmania can provide. Tasmanian producers are passionate, innovative and hardworking people. They pour their hearts and souls into their own products, because a lot of these products are niche. Our air is the most pure in the world, and our soil is the richest. Our biosecurity measures are top notch, to ensure we maintain that clean, green image. But we need to do more to protect the Tasmanian brand.

This bill achieves greater protections by creating clarity around whether a product is entirely made, produced, grown or packaged in Australia or whether it is only partially 'made' in Australia. Under the new bill, the public is empowered to make their own decision and will not feel misled by claims such as 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients', when food is only minimally processed in Australia, as they have felt in the past.

This bill requires corporations to be transparent and upfront with the consumer and therefore it protects our farmers and our producers. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association also supports strong country-of-origin labelling and says that this bill increases the information available to the consumer, allowing them to make more informed decisions.

Just before I finish, I have to say that I did not realise that the labelling in the supermarkets to let you know where the fish comes from is due to Senator Macdonald. I always pay credit where credit is due: kudos to you, Senator Macdonald. That is a great job, and I mean that. People need to know where their seafood is coming from. If we have got that far, maybe we can now get to the fish and chip shops and the restaurants so people know exactly where the seafood is coming from.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start where Senator Lambie finished—and Senator Xenophon made mention of this too. That is, some years ago when I was the minister for fisheries—I did not do it all by myself—but the department in conjunction with other regulatory authorities implemented the arrangement that all fish sold in supermarkets had to be labelled, whether it was Australian or from another country. I think I am like many Australians these days, who go into a supermarket and can see where the seafood comes from. I can say, 'Do I want to buy Australian king prawns, which look lovely but it $36 a kilo? Am I conscious of my pocket and so I will take the imported poorer-looking prawns from Vietnam at about $28 a kilo?' That is my choice as a consumer. That is the way it should be. I agree with Senator Lambie and Senator Xenophon on that.

Senator Xenophon quite rightly mentioned the arrangement in the Northern Territory—states and territories can make their own rules on labelling—where the government, to its credit, did do that in restaurants, and it worked. It has been difficult to get agreement from all the authorities in Australia. I would like to pay tribute to the current minister for fisheries, Senator Ruston, who I know is very keen to ensure that Australians know what they are buying when they go to a fish and chip shop or, more importantly, to a restaurant or to a club or pub. With those last two, the issue sometimes becomes a little more difficult for reasons which might be obvious.

Clearly, pubs and clubs sell meals as an adjunct to their main purpose of selling booze or poker machines—they supply food, good food, but it is mass produced and it often comes from the cheapest source. People do not go to a pub or a club to buy the very best food. If they want to do that, they go to a restaurant but they come to the pub for a beer, a bit of mateship and perhaps a go at the pokies. I accept it is difficult for pubs and clubs and other institutions to do that, but in this day and age with blackboards and computers it is easy to print off a new menu for every meal. It is not the issue that some people might think it might be—the cost that some of these businesses think it might be. I think pubs, clubs and restaurants, particularly restaurants, would benefit from this.

If I go into a restaurant and I see Australian fish there, I know it will be quite expensive, but I can go down the menu and say, 'Oh, there is nice Vietnam barramundi which is a little less expensive.' It is up to me. I am not wealthy, but I know what I would do: I would always, for taste and quality, go for the Australian one and pay five or 10 dollars more at a restaurant. Restaurant owners may well find that a lot of Australians would do that. A lot of people—people particularly who go to restaurants—would say: 'Look, now that I know it is Australian, I am going to pick that piece.' I know Senator Ruston is working on this—and it is not easy. Even for the clubs and pubs it would be so easy for them to put on their blackboards that you can have imported basa and chips at $10 a meal or you can have Australian barramundi at $15 a meal. I do not think that it will stop people going to pubs and clubs or choosing a meal. They might say, 'Well, I'd rather have another beer and the meal that is $10 cheaper, and so I'll have the imported basa with my beer and it'll allow me to have another beer.' That is their choice. The pubs and clubs might find that the reverse actually happens: people might go in and say, 'Would I rather have a bit of Australian fish—better, nicer and it is also helping Australian fishermen—or will I have another beer?'

I think that is an argument that Senator Ruston is yet to win—it is not for me to speak for her, but I have spoken to her quite a lot. Like Senator Lambie, not in Tasmania but up in my neck of the woods of Queensland, I often speak to fishermen and all they want is a fair go. They simply want Australians to be able to recognise their food and, if they choose to pay a little bit more, to be able to buy it. Often you go to fish and chip shops and it is difficult to work out what sort of fish it is because it is usually covered in very thick—unfortunately for me—too tasty batter which hides the fish a bit. It would be good if we could at least have the choice. I would be happy; I think every Australian consumer and the Australian fishing industry would be happy. Retailers might just find that they are taking more across the counter because Australians would go for Australian fish even at a greater cost. So I urge support for that issue, as I do privately with Senator Ruston and the government. As I say, I have confidence in Senator Ruston continuing to support that issue.

As this is a debate, can I just mention to Senator Lambie that I certainly agree with her—it is an awful day when we are agreeing with each other so much, Senator Lambie—that this parliament should be prioritising its agendas better. Quite frankly, I am sick of hearing about same-sex marriage. I am sick of hearing about Donald Trump, who I did not elect and who has got nothing to do with me. I am absolutely sick of it. I am sick of hearing the lies about the Barrier Reef—the absolute lies. I am sick of that. Can't we prioritise and get onto the issues that the majority of Australians actually believe in? Senator Lambie—and, again, it is for the minister to explain it better than I—there is a reason why we do not have these plebiscites at elections—and I appreciate the 'cost' argument. If you do it at an election, it becomes part of the political process and people might say, for example: 'Oh, yes, I believe in same-sex marriage so I am going to vote for it But, hang on, that is the one the Labor Party and the Greens are supporting. I don't like the Labor Party and the Greens so I am going to vote no, because I don't want to do anything to support the Labor Party and the Greens.' It gets tied up in the regular election cycle. So I think the vote you would get at a plebiscite held at the same time as an election would be skewed. It would be flawed because it would become part of the process.

I also agree with you that had we had some assistance from this chamber in what would, I think, be one month's time when we would have had a plebiscite on same-sex marriage that the day after that plebiscite it would be over and finished—whatever way it went. I do not want to restart that argument, but I would vote against same-sex marriage. However, if the majority of Australians said yes then I would come into this chamber and vote yes. I made that very clear. In one month's time that issue could have been resolved—but it will not be.

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

Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Would you bring the senator's attention to the bill that is under discussion at the moment, which is about country-of-origin food labelling. I do not think that waxing lyrically about his views on equal marriage is relevant to the bill under consideration.

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

Thank you, Senator Rice. Senator Macdonald, there were a number of points of order this morning when another senator was speaking. I know that you have largely spent the time on the bill, but if you could get back to the bill that would be appreciated.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. If I can say to Senator Rice, who has just wandered into the chamber: this is a debate in which Senator Lambie in her very sensible contribution mentioned priorities and same-sex marriage. I do not think you took the point of order then, did you?

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

Senator Macdonald, I remind you to make your remarks through the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President—and a timely warning. But did the senator who has just made the point of order make the same point of order when Senator Lambie was talking about same-sex marriage? Senator Lambie has raised the matter in this debate, and because this is a debate in the parliament of Australia I was simply responding—

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

A point of order, Madam Deputy President. This is a continuation of a discussion which is not about the bill at hand. Senator Lambie indeed did mention same-sex marriage, quite inappropriately, I thought.

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

Senator Rice, you have quite correctly raised a point of order, which I have made a recommendation on. I remind all senators that we are here to speak about the bill before us and that that is what should largely occupy their discussion and their speech. Often they give background, so I am sure Senator Macdonald will get back to the bill in question.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. Again, I repeat that this is a debate in the chamber. I am simply answering something another senator raised and agreeing with that senator that this chamber should prioritise its work; it should move onto important issues—issues that are really important to all Australians; and it should not be diverted by periphery issues such as same-sex marriage, which would have been over and done with in a month's a time had this chamber not denied Australians the opportunity of expressing their views.

Can I again congratulate the government on bringing forward this bill about country-of-origin labelling for Australian produced products. Under the current regime, the definition of what is made in Australia or the country of origin is somewhat confusing and some of the tests that were in place were even more confusing and less helpful. This bill addresses those issues. It provides businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute and do not constitute substantial transformation, which is the test for what is made in Australia and what is not. It will make it clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of the imported good, such as dicing or canning, are not sufficient to justify the 'made in' wherever claim. The 50 per cent production cost test that currently applies is an unnecessary burden on business and it means little to consumers. The test is difficult to administer, given the complexities of sourcing components through the global supply chain and the variability due to currency fluctuations. These tests in the former bill will become redundant for food products, with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredient.

Senators will be aware that the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which was made under the previous bill, came into effect on 1 July and is being separately tabled in a disallowable instrument in this parliament. That standard, which is the one we have been waiting for for some years, requires mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food that is sold, offered or displayed for sale in Australia. Unfortunately, it does not, for various reasons, impose labelling requirements on food sold outside Australia. This new label will help Australians, almost at a glance, work out how much of the particular product is Australian made or sourced.

Through the information standard, most Australian foods will need to carry a label with a clearly defined box containing a kangaroo-in-the-triangle logo to indicate that the food is grown, produced or made in Australia. It will also have—and this is the bit I like—a bar chart that indicates the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food and the box will also have a statement summarising the visual information. That bar chart will show us at a glance, as we go to the supermarket, how much of a product really is Australian.

I do not see that as a protectionist policy, because many people—and I accept this—will buy their food on price. Many people who do not have big incomes or who are on welfare or who have big families will say, 'I choose that because it's cheaper,' but they will do it in the full knowledge of just how much of the particular product is really Australian and how much is not. I think that is a wonderful step forward. It has been, as one other senator in this debate commented, a long time coming.

I know in our party—and, I suspect, in the other parties as well—we have had debates over many years. I am sure the Labor Party would have been through this because they did nothing in the six years they were in government. But they would have come across the same complexities that we have confronted over the last 20 years that I have been here, and we have been talking about it all that time. It is a difficult situation to get right without pricing the product out of the reach of anyone through complexity of regulation. It has been difficult. I guess some will say, 'It's not perfect; we can do better.' I know the government is always keen to get any views on this. I think the place where we have landed is pretty good. I think you will find that most Australians will appreciate the ability to make an informed choice now on what food they buy.

I conclude by agreeing with the committee that Senator Xenophon said has looked at this and has recommended the bill be passed. I also agree, as I explained before, with Senator Xenophon and Senator Lambie that we have to do something about seafood not in supermarkets. Thanks to a very good minister several years ago, that is already in place in the supermarkets. But in fish and chip shops, hotels, clubs and restaurants, I think we can do it without placing an unrealistic burden on those retail institutions. I wish Senator Ruston all the best as she takes that argument forward. Clearly, I support the bill. I think it is a real step forward for Australia.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Before speaking further, though, I want to make clear that I support Senator Macdonald's comments supporting freedom of choice because that is what is at the heart of this bill: informed freedom of choice. I also support his comments on the Great Barrier Reef.

This bill, though, seeks to clarify and improve consumer law by amending schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill is primarily intended to simplify the tests used to justify a country of origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what the phrase 'substantial transformation' really means and by removing the 50 per cent production cost test. This bill tightens the definition of what is really Australian made in the country-of-origin food labelling requirements. It makes 'country of origin' or 'Australian made' legitimate.

I understand that this bill forms part of the government's broader country-of-origin labelling package, previously agreed by the states, along with the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 which commenced last year. Currently, the definition of 'Australian made' is based on having at least 50 per cent Australian production cost, which leads to misleading labelling of foreign foods as 'made in Australia' when in fact they may have only been minimally processed in Australia. Under this bill, the country-of-origin labelling requirements for food will be strengthened and moved to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law. The new labels for food will include a bar chart to indicate the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food. As part of this process, foods grown, produced or made in Australia will be identified by the traditional kangaroo-in-a-triangle Australian made symbol.

I congratulate the government for adopting this measure, as this is exactly the approach Pauline Hanson's One Nation Political Party has been advocating as policy for many years. As a One Nation senator for Queensland, I am strongly committed to supporting Australian grown, packaged and manufactured goods and products, and our party is strongly committed to identifying and promoting genuinely Australian made products and exposing bogus Australian-sounding imports as frauds. Of course, this bill is just the latest in a long line of excellent One Nation policies adopted by the government. There is another one and that is coal-fired power. What a remarkable change in just three months. Sadly, our own Queensland Premier says 'no more coal-fired power stations'. So I can only express my hope that this bill is but the next of many more One Nation policies that the government will choose to adopt in the future.

However, one pressing issue regarding food imports that this bill does not consider is the allowing of contaminated foodstuffs into Australia and the blending of imported foodstuffs with Australian produce in bonded warehouses prior to importation. This wholly inappropriate practice, which may only be revealed on the label of foodstuffs as 'contains mix of Australian and imported ingredients', needs to be prohibited. Perniciously, in the case of peanuts for example, I understand that this blending prior to import inspection is done because the much cheaper imported ingredients contain levels of contaminants that do not meet Australian health standards.

Peanuts are notorious for absorbing any available cadmium from the soil in which they grow. Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that accumulates in the human body and is a major cause of adult kidney failure. Thanks to the clean unpolluted Australian environment, Australian grown peanuts contain no cadmium, while Chinese peanuts, as a result of their proximity to polluting Chinese heavy industries, may be heavily contaminated with this poison. Because of the serious health risk that they pose, contaminated Chinese peanuts should be considered a prohibited import. Reprehensibly, in order to maximize profits, unscrupulous importers have sought to subvert Australia's food health standards and import restrictions by importing these cheap, cadmium contaminated Chinese peanuts and, I understand, blending them with cadmium free Australian peanuts in bonded warehouses, prior to customs inspections. Food that is imported into Australia is regulated by the Imported Food Control Act 1992 and the Imported Food Control Regulations 1993. Together, these statutes provide for the Food Inspection Scheme. Currently all imported peanuts are classified as a risk food as a result of the danger of cadmium contamination.

Even though all food products ultimately offered for sale in Australia must meet our health standards, experts have argued that in some areas, such as heavy metal contamination, health regulations may reflect 1950s 'acceptable' contamination limits and are seriously out of date. Thus, while schedule 19 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code sets the maximum allowable level of cadmium that may be contained in peanuts as 0.5mg/kg, given that virtually any cadmium—any cadmium—consumed remains in the body for life, most medical experts today argue that there are no truly safe levels of cumulative toxins like cadmium, and therefore the safest course is to avoid any food exposure at all.

Accordingly, whilst it goes beyond the scope of the bill currently under consideration, I strongly urge the government to outlaw practices such as the blending of Australian and imported goods prior to food safety testing, and to declare peanuts containing cadmium a prohibited import. This will eliminate a very real and totally unnecessary threat to the health of Australians.

For the information of the Australian people, to my knowledge only Dick Smith brand peanut butter is made with exclusively Australian peanuts, which are of course cadmium free. Until such time as this issue is addressed and cadmium contaminated peanuts are declared a prohibited import, I urge all Australians who value their kidneys to read the country-of-origin label on peanuts and eat only safe Australian grown peanuts, and consider buying only Dick Smith brand peanut butter.

While supportive of this legislation, I believe we as a parliament need to address the core issue for bringing back Australian food production, both in quality and quantity, and bringing back manufacturing. After 42 years of de-industrialisation under Liberal/National coalitions and under Labor/Greens coalitions, we must re-industrialise our country. To re-industrialise we must face up to the core issue: comprehensive tax reform at the state and federal levels, instead of window-dressing.

Further, to continue with Senator Macdonald comments on the fishing industry, it is my understanding that this island on which we live is the largest in the world and yet we import almost three-quarters of the seafood we eat. All that Australian farmers, fishermen and manufacturers want is a fair go. Ultimately, this bill gives people an informed freedom of choice. Notwithstanding the issues of toxins and tax, I otherwise commend this legislation to the Senate.

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

In 1993, or around then, I came to this building in Canberra to lobby friends in the National Party for country-of-origin labelling, because the then Hawke/Keating Labor government allowed the importation of pig meat from places such as Denmark and Canada. My brother, Peter, and I had a 100-sow piggery, feeding about 1,000 pigs a day and I found it quite frustrating that they would import pig meat into Australia, process it into ham, and brand it 'Manufactured in Australia' or 'Product of Australia'. It was so misleading. All I wanted was a fair go to see that the Australian people knew what they were buying—whether it was grown in Australia, processed in Australia, imported, processed here from Australian and imported blends et cetera.

Since 1993 it has been a long, frustrating road, I can assure you. We all know that the wheels of parliament do not go very fast. During the berry contamination issue about 18 months ago, where many Australians contracted hepatitis because of some imported berries, I stood up in the joint party room—Senator Sinodinos was there—and said to the then Prime Minister, 'Mr Abbott, we need a country-of-origin food labelling system so that people can clarify what they are buying and eating.' To his full credit, Mr Abbott said, 'Let's get on with it.' That is where we have come to right along this road of country-of-origin labelling.

It will be good to see the Australian kangaroo and the green triangle—a very well-known label that is very familiar, I would say, to all shoppers in Australia. It will have 'Grown in Australia' and the bar code underneath will be completely orange. You will know that the food you are about to eat for the can of whatever you are purchasing was grown, processed and packaged here in Australia. It will show the blends that will come forward—what percentage is actually made from imported ingredients and from Australian ingredients. I must agree with Senator Macdonald as far as the fishing industry goes. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you were on a committee with us in the Northern Territory. What a great thing it is that Northern Territorians know exactly where their fish is coming from—70 per cent imported. I think that is where we need to make progress as well, on that very issue. All we are asking is that people know what they are eating and where it comes from.

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

It being 12.45, the time for the debate has expired.