Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you are shopping for your weekly groceries at the supermarket and you turn over the packet to read the ingredients on a bag of chips, a block of chocolate or a box of biscuits, you would expect that what you see is what you get. But, believe it or not, that is not always the case. What is being hidden from us is potentially impacting our health and destroying the environment. Palm oil is one of the world's leading agricultural commodities and is widely used. In fact, palm oil can be found in approximately 40 per cent of food products at the supermarket, and every year the average Australian consumes around 10 kilos of palm oil without even knowing it. That is because, under the current food labelling laws, manufacturers are able to label palm oil as vegetable oil on the packaging. For starters, the palm is a fruit, not a vegetable. Secondly, palm oil is high in saturated fat and low in polyunsaturated fat, and, according to the Heart Foundation, biomedical research indicates that the consumption of palm oil increases the risk of heart disease. Thirdly, in South-East Asia alone, the equivalent of 300 soccer fields is deforested every hour for palm oil plantation, and each year more than 1,000 orangutans die as a result of the land clearing in this region.

There is no question that the current labelling laws are inadequate and are misleading consumers. The fact that palm oil is allowed to be disguised as vegetable oil means that Australians aren't able to make an informed choice for themselves and for their family about what they buy at the supermarket because they are not being given all of the facts. In 2011, when my NXT colleague Senator Xenophon first introduced a bill to strengthen labelling laws for food containing palm oil, Zoos Victoria, Adelaide Zoo and Auckland Zoo in New Zealand launched the Don't Palm Us Off campaign, calling for palm oil to be labelled specifically on food packaging. In the first 12 months of that campaign, more than 130,000 people signed on to show their concern about palm oil. In November 2016, Zoos Victoria relaunched the same campaign, this time attracting a staggering 160,000 signatures.

But the concerns of Australians are falling on deaf ears. Still nothing has been done to ensure consumers can easily determine if the products they are purchasing contain palm oil. In 2011, when Senator Xenophon's previous bill was debated in the Senate, the following remarks were made during the second reading debate by the coalition, who were then in opposition:

There are many processes. They go on for a long time. As Senator Siewert outlined, this has been proposed for many years. But there has been no action. So the coalition, in supporting this bill, is simply saying consumers have the right to know what is in the food and goods they purchase. We believe this will improve consumers' ability to make informed choices.

The community is backing these reforms. Some manufacturers are backing these reforms. It seems that, when the coalition was in opposition, they were also backing these reforms. So why isn't it compulsory for palm oil to be specifically listed as an ingredient on all packaging? Put simply, if the saying 'We are what we eat' is true, then we have the right to know what we are eating, and this bill will give consumers truthful, accurate and clear information about what they are purchasing. In the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each individual fat and/or oil ingredient of a food is to be declared by its specific common or usual name—that is, palm oil is listed as palm oil. Similarly, under the provisions of this bill, regardless of the amount of palm oil used in the product, palm oil must be listed as an ingredient.

It is important to be clear that this bill is not calling for a boycott of products which contain palm oil; rather, it is designed to enable consumers to know the whole truth about the ingredients a particular product contains so that they can make their own informed choice prior to purchase. Just like the inclusion of wheat in a product is labelled to inform consumers with possible allergies, so too should shoppers be told that palm oil is contained in a particular food product. When Senator Xenophon announced his intention to move his bill back in 2010, he was contacted by dozens of people outraged that they didn't know and couldn't tell that palm oil was an ingredient in their food. Unfortunately, not much has changed in those seven years. The Nick Xenophon Team shares those frustrations. Consumers should be able to trust that, when the list of ingredients is printed on the packaging, all the ingredients are included on that list.

On the issue of conservation, palm oil can be produced sustainably and manufacturers should be encouraged to use certified sustainable palm oil rather than palm oil which is produced as a result of deforestation and a loss of wildlife habitat. In Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, a farmer will chop down all the trees on his land and sell the timber for money. He will then burn the stumps and plant oil palm, which is fast growing. He will crush the fruit to produce palm oil and he can sell the shells of the palm fruit as food for cattle. By cutting down the trees, orangutans lose their habitat. In fact, 90 per cent of orangutan habitat has been lost already. It is forecast that, at the current rate of deforestation, orangutans could be extinct in the wild in fewer than 10 years. On a broader scale, the environmental impact of deforestation is significant. How can we be serious about looking after the environment when we're not encouraging businesses to farm sustainably?

Palm oil can be produced sustainably under criteria set out by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Sustainable palm oil plantations are established in already cleared land rather than through deforestation. The roundtable's criteria also includes requirements for reforestation along the river line, bans on pesticides, appropriate labour conditions and wildlife-friendly practices. Manufacturers who use certified sustainable palm oil will be able to list the use of the ingredient as CS palm oil to indicate its sustainable origins and to show consumers that they are sourcing their ingredient from a sustainable palm oil plantation. This bill will encourage food manufacturers to purchase from sustainable palm oil producers and will provide consumers with all the information they need to make their own choice.

Calling palm oil vegetable oil is misleading. Not telling Australians that palm oil is one of the ingredients in or used to make a product is unfair. There have been some significant changes to food labelling laws made in this parliament and the NXT welcomes these changes. However, more can be done and the discontent felt by the community at the lack of action on this issue is growing. Consumers have a right to know and this bill gives them that right.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I congratulate the Nick Xenophon Team for bringing this important issue before the Senate. I don't doubt for a moment the very genuine sincerity of the Nick Xenophon Team in seeking to address an issue that many Australians are concerned about. However, the government does not support the bill. I will outline some of the concerns the government has about the proposed bill and some of the reasons why the government has reservations about this approach to tackling this issue.

We absolutely understand that Australian consumers are concerned about the ingredients in the products they purchase for themselves and their families. Primarily, what consumers want to know about the food they eat is that it's safe and that the household products that they purchase will not harm them or their families. This is how consumers make decisions about the products that they buy. They are also concerned, very critically, about the price of the products that they buy and they want to receive good value for those products. That's something we should never lose sight of.

The other issues that consumers do and should take into account when buying products include environmental concerns. However, the purpose of government regulation for labelling is first and foremost, as it should be, about the health and safety of consumers and ensuring that consumers get the information they need so that they can make informed choices, including on environmental matters, if they so choose.

Palm oil is a product that is widely used in the foods and products that Australian households use every day. As the bill acknowledges, there is a difference between the sustainable production of palm oil and the production of palm oil that damages the environment, and the habitat of orangutans in particular. It is worth pausing and reflecting on that for a moment. Not all palm oil is bad, and there are ways and means of harvesting palm oil that are environmentally sustainable and do not have a negative impact on animal life. That is a very critical thing, because sometimes in this debate you are left with the impression that palm oil is an evil product that only does harm, when in fact that is not the case.

Currently, manufacturers and importers can—and many do—voluntarily declare in the ingredient list on their labels that there is palm oil in their products. Many businesses operating in Australia are taking action on this issue and seeking to use sustainable palm oil in the products that they manufacture and sell. In addition, these businesses clearly label the use of palm oil. If we think about it, that makes perfect sense. Businesses are aware of and responding to a consumer preference. They know that this issue is of concern to consumers and they're providing consumers with the information to make an educated choice about their purchases. That is something we should welcome. In addition, I think it is very promising and welcome to see that many companies are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which promotes the supply of palm oil that is sourced from eco-friendly areas.

Voluntary certification allows businesses to provide information to consumers, who may be motivated by social, environmental, economic or other ethical concerns, by labelling their products as using sustainable palm oil. Voluntary certification is a really powerful tool that is used in a range of areas. Everyone will be familiar with, for example, the Heart Foundation's tick of approval. It's not government mandated; it is not compulsory; but many consumers value that Heart Foundation tick of approval in making their choices in the supermarket. It allows them to choose products which are healthier for them and their families. This solves the problem in the market without any government intervention. There are consumers who are motivated to buy products of this type, there is a private certifier who is willing to certify that products meet these standards, and there are businesses who want to ensure that their products receive this certification and meet those standards so that they can reach those consumers. Not every business wants to participate in this, and not every product will be labelled in this way. But if you are a consumer for whom this is an important issue then there is the necessary information in the marketplace for you to make an informed choice, and it didn't require any government regulation.

There are lots of other examples like the Heart Foundation's tick of approval—for example, many of the Fairtrade and organic-certified products are done in a completely private-sector way, with no government regulation requiring it. There are other companies that choose to market their products based primarily on their environmental sustainability. A good example is—and this followed some media controversy—companies that sell tuna and choose to emphasise that it is sustainably harvested and dolphin-free. No government required them to do that, but they've gone out and done that because they know that it's important to consumers. This is now beginning to take place in the palm oil space, and I think that's a very welcome development.

The private senator's bill that Senator Kakoschke-Moore has outlined proposes to amend schedule 2—Australian Consumer Law—of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Australian Consumer Law provides broad protections for consumers by ensuring that the information that businesses provide is not false, misleading or deceptive. The proposal to amend the ACL by inserting a new section 134A would require the government to make an information standard specifically relating to the labelling of goods containing palm oil within 12 months of the bill's passage. Importantly, this would include all goods that contain any amount of palm oil as an ingredient, including foods, shampoos, cosmetics and washing powders. To my knowledge, it doesn't differentiate between palm oil that is sustainably harvested and other palm oil; it just requires that any use of palm oil be labelled. Given that we know that some palm oil is unsustainably harvested and problematic but some is harvested in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, this is one area of concern.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the amendment is for the purpose of environmental protection. This is not consistent with the role of the Australian Consumer Law. The purpose of the Australian Consumer Law is to improve consumer wellbeing through consumer empowerment and protection to foster effective competition and enable confident participation in markets. It is not the purpose of Australian Consumer Law to impose an obligation on businesses to provide all of the information that consumers may find useful in deciding whether or not to purchase a product. The Consumer Law is there to protect consumers from false and misleading representations that may appear on the label. Of course, it is not practical to mandate that every piece of potentially useful information is on the label of every product. There is a limited amount of real estate to do so. If we required companies to provide every potential piece of relevant information, there would be no room for anything else on a product's label other than government-mandated warnings and information.

This bill is motivated by genuine environmental concerns about deforestation—particularly in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia—but it is not particularly motivated by a concern that consumers are being misled about the nature of the goods or that palm oil poses a safety issue for consumers, which is the primary purpose of the Australian Consumer Law.

The explanatory memorandum also provides that the proposed bill encourages the use of certified sustainable palm oil. However, there is nothing in the wording of the bill that would make such a proposal enforceable, nor is the Consumer Law the appropriate vehicle for environmental protection measures, as I've mentioned. The Consumer Law's objectives are to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged when they engage in trade or commerce and that they are protected from unfair practices.

Importantly, the bill is also inconsistent with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law, which requires that any amendment to the Australian Consumer Law—including the making of information and standards—is subject to formal consultation and voting by states and territories. This process has not been followed with this bill—and it's worth noting that this intergovernmental agreement process is, in fact, not a coalition government process but a Labor process that was put in place by the previous government.

If the proposed bill was successful, there is a very real possibility that the states and territories may decide not to apply the provision because the changes were not made in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. This is appropriate, given many areas of consumer law are regulated by the states. In addition, while it's possible to insert such a provision, it would potentially be legally ineffective in compelling the minister to make an information standard—that is, the bill could have no effect.

The proposed amendment to the Australian Consumer Law is inconsistent with the generic nature of Australian consumer law, which is currently sufficiently broad enough to cover conduct relating to the representation of ingredients such as palm oil. The passage of the bill has the potential to erode the benefits of having a national, generic, consistent consumer law. Information standards are only considered as a regulatory option after other responses have been considered as insufficient and where there is strong evidence of consumer detriment or widespread noncompliance. To date, the government does not believe there has been strong evidence of consumer detriment presented.

The bill has not been subject to any regulatory impact analysis. The proposal would likely impose significant compliance costs on businesses, including the cost of designing new labels and potentially relabelling existing products. It would also potentially require stringent record keeping and information transfer procedures as the bill requires all products containing any palm oil be labelled—as I said before, even if it is not necessarily harmful or in meaningful amounts.

The labelling of palm oil or palm oil derived chemicals in cosmetics and products is already regulated through the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetic) Regulations 1991. This information standard requires that cosmetic products list all ingredients or palm oil derived chemicals. While the Australian Consumer Law is not the appropriate place to deal with these issues, the Australian government is taking action in other areas.

The government acknowledges that there is community interest and concern in the use and labelling of palm oil as an ingredient in food products in particular. The government is well aware of the issue of palm oil in foods and is currently examining these issues with our state and territory colleagues. Currently, the labelling of added fats—including palm oil and sugars—in food is being considered by the Australian and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, with regulatory and non-regulatory options being developed. This is the appropriate forum to consider food labelling.

Currently, manufacturers do not have to list palm oil as an ingredient in food. They can, as Senator Kakoschke-Moore mentioned, use a generic term such as 'vegetable oil'. The issue of food labelling should be left to be considered in detail by the forum. This is important work, and it would be inappropriate for this bill to circumvent that process. The government must endeavour to balance improving the information on food labels to meet consumers' needs against maintaining the marketing flexibility and minimising the regulatory burden on industry and barriers to trade.

It's worth reflecting on the previous bill that Senator Xenophon introduced in 2011, which was called the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011. It sought to amend section 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. That bill was introduced and read for the first time on 4 July 2011. The bill was subsequently removed from the Notice Paper on 20 March, 2012, during the 43rd parliament. The 2011 bill was examined by the House Standing Committee on Economics. On 19 September, 2011, the House Standing Committee on Economics presented its report recommending that the House of Representatives at the time should not pass that Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill because the legislation was flawed and would result in a range of unintended consequences. The government members of the day—and I should point out that they were Labor members—recommended that the House not pass the bill.

Coalition opposition members at the time were also concerned about the bill. They particularly mentioned the trade related considerations raised in evidence to the committee. The coalition members were concerned that this issue was only briefly touched upon in a Senate inquiry report and that the evidence presented to the committee highlighted Australia's trade obligations as a legitimate area of public policy concern. Evidence to the committee highlighted a number of trade related risks. Opposition members at the time—coalition members—recognised that it may well be arguable that the bill offended World Trade Organization rules by indirectly advancing the interests of local vegetable oil production that may be a substitute for palm oil products and may invoke potentially harmful retaliatory action and lengthy dispute resolution processes.

These are the reasons the government is reluctant to support the bill, while still respecting the genuine motivations of the Nick Xenophon Team in raising this issue.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2017. Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil derived from the pulp of oil palm fruits. Oil can also be derived from the kernel of the same fruit, but this is usually referred to as palm kernel oil. Palm oil is around half saturated fats, which is uncommon for vegetable fats. It is semisolid at room temperature. It's a common cooking ingredient in the tropical belt. Palm oil is also used extensively in the commercial processed food industry as it is cheaper than competitors like canola oil. It also yields more oil per hectare than any other vegetable oil. Palm oil's semi-solid state at room temperature also makes it suitable as a cheap substitute for butter or other shortening in baking. Interestingly, during the industrial revolution, palm oil became sought after by British traders in Asia and Africa for use as an industrial lubricant for machinery. It can also form the basis of soap products. It's part of the derivative behind the Palmolive soap brand—the other, of course, being olive oil.

The bulk of the world's palm oil is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia. Eighty five per cent of global production comes from these two countries. Indonesia produces 50 million tonnes per year while Malaysia produces 20 million tonnes. People in both countries have benefited significantly from economic development achieved through expanded palm oil agriculture and export. Of course, there has been criticism of the way that palm oil plantations have spread in South-East Asia over recent decades. Specifically, the concerns are around deforestation of rainforests and jungle to plant the palm oil monoculture.

There are two environmental concerns in relation to deforestation. Aside from general concerns around the loss of biodiversity, the native forests of Indonesia and Malaysia are the habitats of the Sumatran and Bornean orangutans. Along with illegal logging, clearing of rainforests for oil palm plantations has been blamed for orangutan habitat loss in South-East Asia. This is a particular concern because of the highly endangered status of these animals. There's also concern around carbon emissions. As we know, forests absorb carbon from our atmosphere and lock it up as trees grow. The deforestation process to clear for oil palm plantations is often done by burning. This, essentially, unlocks centuries of carbon absorbed by the forests and releases it into the atmosphere.

These concerns have led to campaigns against palm oil in developed countries like Australia. These campaigns have, in part, advocated an ethical consumption ethos, whereby consumers refrain from purchasing goods that they know contain palm oil. In Australia there are currently no legal requirements to list palm oil specifically as an ingredient. It is usually listed as 'vegetable oil' without a specific indication of which type of vegetable oil it is.

This bill, introduced by Senator Xenophon, seeks to oblige the minister to ensure that palm oil is labelled as such when used as an ingredient in consumer goods, including foods. The bill seeks to enable ethical consumption campaigns so that consumers who want to help save orangutan habitats know which products contain palm oil and can avoid purchasing them. Labor shares Senator Xenophon's concern about the deforestation in South-East Asia not only because of its impact on endangered primate populations but also because of a broader concern about the impacts on our climate. Labor also notes that Senator Xenophon has form in relation to labelling products that contained palm oil. Last time Senator Xenophon attempted to pass a change to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act as his vehicle for achieving the purpose he now purports to achieve through this bill. It's worth reminding ourselves of that history because it is instructive to this debate.

In government, Labor recognised that there was significant consumer and industry interest in food labelling, including in the area of environmental food labelling, so we worked through COAG and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to commission a comprehensive food-labelling review. This was undertaken by an independent expert panel headed up by Dr Neal Blewett, who was, of course, Minister for Health from 1983 to 1987, and who oversaw the implementation of Medicare. On 28 January 2011, the Gillard government officially released the report Labelling logic. It was the final report of the review of food labelling law and policy. Recommendation 12 of the review referred to labelling of added palm oils to food and it recommended:

That where sugars, fats or vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the terms 'added sugars' and 'added fats' and/or 'added vegetable oils' be used in the ingredient list as the generic term, followed by a bracketed list (e.g., added sugars (fructose, glucose, syrup, honey), added fats (palm oil, milk fat) or added vegetable oils (sunflower oil, palm oil)).

In December 2011, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation agreed on a response to the recommendations contained in the review. As part of that response, the forum asked the food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, to work on a number of recommendations, including recommendation 12. Food Standards Australia New Zealand provided that advice in June 2016. In response to their meeting in November 2016, ministers noted that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand technical evaluation identified that labelling of sugars, fats and vegetable oils is a very complex issue. It also identified a number of developments in food labelling and dietary advice since the initial labelling review was undertaken.

Ministers agreed that consideration of the recommendations should continue as two separate pieces of work. One is for the food regulation standing committee to lead policy work on the next steps in relation to naming resources of fats and oils in order to support consumers to make informed choice consistent with the Australian and New Zealand dietary guidelines. In April this year ministers decided to extend the scope of the committee's work to develop regulatory and non-regulatory options for identifying fats and oils on food labels. Labor looks forward to these proposals for comprehensive labelling reform. The government may wish to use this debate to update the parliament on the progress of that work. I say all of that by way of background, but I return to Senator Xenophon's bill.

Senator Xenophon's bill falls short for a few reasons. The first is that the bill amends schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which is commonly referred to as the Australian Consumer Law, yet the Australian Consumer Law is not just a Commonwealth act. It was created in consultation with, and is enforced in concert with, states and territories and their respective consumer protection regulators. While I've no doubt as to Senator Xenophon's good intentions, seeking to change the Australian Consumer Law without consulting states and territories is, at best, discourteous and, at worst, undermines the settled agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories that underpins our national consumer protection regime.

The second is that the bill singles out palm oil labelling as requiring an explicit reference in the ACL, despite the fact that product labelling reform in Australia continues to be worked out far more broadly. Senator Xenophon seems to be unconcerned, for example, that the government is considering removing the requirement for product measurement markings—the weight or volume of a product—to be marked on the front of a package. They're doing this so as to remove the requirement for European cosmetic companies to relabel their imported make-up, but it can only lead to mums and dads having to spend more time in the supermarket aisle trying to figure out how much product is actually in the packet.

Senator Xenophon also seems to be unconcerned with enshrining the specification of other types of oils or fats—canola oil, for example—in legislation. More generally, the level of specificity that the bill proposes to insert in one section of the Australian Consumer Law is not in keeping with the structure of the rest of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act. It undermines its structural integrity, fairness and consistency. Like many parts of public policy, product labelling is actually far more nuanced than many realise. Labor is committed to improving Australia's product-labelling requirements, as I've described, but not like this. Labelling reform should be done in the best interests of consumers, it should be done in consultation with relevant stakeholders and it should be done in accordance with the law as well as government agreements.

The third concern Labor has about this bill's inadequacy is that its intent is to prevent deforestation overseas. Notwithstanding our doubts about using Australian consumer law as an instrument of foreign policy, Labor notes that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in their submission to Senator Xenophon's 2011 bill:

There is no evidence to suggest that labelling products which use palm oil would be an effective means to address … concerns of deforestation in South East Asia.

DFAT went on to explain that they believe that the Australian government's $300 million investment in projects to directly address deforestation and illegal logging in South-East Asia would deliver inherent benefits for the region's biodiversity, including orangutan habitats. Also, in its inquiry into Senator Xenophon's previous bill—the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics could find no evidence that palm oil labelling arrested deforestation and concluded:

The committee is of the view that the Bill would not affect deforestation of orangutan habitats because it will not act on the factors driving deforestation. Deforestation is occurring because Indonesia and Malaysia wish to improve their living standards, and one of the most effective means of doing so is through agriculture. Further, one of the most commercially successful crops in the tropics is palm oil.

Indeed, since Senator Xenophon's last private senator's bill on deforestation in South-East Asia, Australia has not been idle and our national agencies have continued to work directly with the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia on deforestation issues.

The fourth concern is that it won't work. Under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010—the act this bill seeks to amend—the minister already has the power to make the information standards that Senator Xenophon's bill prescribes. That section clearly says:

134 Making information standards for goods and services

  (1) The Commonwealth Minister may, by written notice published on the internet, make an information standard for one or both of the following:

     (a) goods of a particular kind;

     (b) services of a particular kind.

  (2) Without limiting subsection (1), an information standard for goods or services of a particular kind may:

     (a) make provision in relation to the content of information about goods or services of that kind; or

      (b) require the provision of specified information about goods or services of that kind; or

     (c) provide for the manner or form in which such information is to be provided; or

     (d) provide that such information is not to be provided in a specified manner or form; or

     (e) provide that information of a specified kind is not to be provided about goods or services of that kind; or

     (f) assign a meaning to specified information about goods or services.

Notwithstanding the current long white cloud hanging over the eligibility of Deputy Prime Minister Joyce to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, under current legislation this bill will only become law if the government agrees to it. But if the government is agreeable to implementing an information standard about palm oil or, indeed, about specifying all fats and oils in a product, the bill is redundant because the minister already has the power to do so. Labor respects the work that Senator Xenophon is doing to highlight this important environmental issue. We're ready to work with all comers on the issues around palm oil and the best way to address them. Indeed, Labor is methodically continuing to pursue improvements to Australia's product labelling arrangements in the interests of Australian consumers and will continue to do so.

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

I'm very pleased to be speaking today in support of the Nick Xenophon Team's bill to improve the labelling of palm oil in Australian products. My interest in the issue of palm oil and the impact of palm oil plantations on the world's environment dates back about 25 years, when I visited Sumatra. While there, I took the opportunity to spend a few days going on a walk through the Sumatran rainforest. I distinctly remember the experience of walking along a ridge line which had a national park on one side and unprotected forest on the other. What a contrast between the sounds—the amazing calls of the siamang gibbons and the sounds of vibrant, lively forest, absolutely rich with a whole range of different animal species, on one side and the constant roar of bulldozers and chainsaws on the other! It was a very moving experience.

Later in that trip, I visited the Bohorok Orangutan Centre, an orangutan sanctuary near the city of Medan, where I got to see some of the orangutans that had been rescued from the logging and deforestation activities in the surrounding area. To get up close to these orangutans was incredibly moving, to connect with them and to realise that we humans have no right to be sending such a species to extinction. And that's what the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia is doing. It's consigning to extinction these incredibly beautiful, valuable, precious species like orangutans and all the other species that live in these forests.

I came back to Australia pretty fired up. I was already working on Australian forest issues. What could we do about this problem as Australians? This comes to the heart of the bill that's before us today. The very least we can do is give people here in Australia knowledge about the consequences of the food that they eat or the products they use. They should know that, if they use a product or eat a product that contains palm oil, in almost all circumstances—not all, but almost all—it has a direct connection with the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia. By eating those products, they are directly connected to the close extinction of species like orangutans. It is due to that connection that there has been such a focus on palm oil in the Australian community, including from organisations that aren't activist organisations, such as the Melbourne Zoo. It's something that we here in Australia can do. We are empowered. We are able to make those consumer decisions.

There is the bigger question of how to stop the deforestation of tropical rainforests. There are so many ways in which we need to address that. Obviously, the most effective way would be for the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia to say that they will stop it happening by legislating and enforcing that legislation so that rainforest deforestation completely ceases. We, as Australians, can apply pressure. Our government can apply pressure to their governments to stop it happening, but that's an ongoing process. It's not easy for Australians to have the ability to suggest to other sovereign governments what they should be doing. Obviously, there are other international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate, where the importance of stopping deforestation is recognised. There is international pressure on countries to maintain their forest cover and maintain the ability of the globe to soak up the carbon that we are polluting our atmosphere with.

For us here in Australia, the best thing that we have is the ability to act as consumers. In order to be able to act as consumers, we need information, and that's what this bill is aimed at providing people: information about whether the products that they are consuming actually contain palm oil. The other bit of information that we need is certification to account for palm oil that has been produced in a sustainable way. I note that there are still some question marks over the certification scheme and whether sustainably produced palm oil is necessarily sustainably produced, but that is an issue that's not covered by this legislation. The very minimum that we can do in order to have a tangible effect is give the citizens of Australia the opportunity to make informed decisions. I reject the arguments being put by the government today that this is too high a regulatory burden. Again, you're weighing up the value of giving consumers this information versus the regulatory burden. Every time we have had debates in this place about better labelling, we have heard the same tired arguments of the government—'It's going to increase the regulatory burden.' I'm sorry, there are things that we do because they are the right things to do. In fact, when those things are finally followed through, you see that the increased regulatory burden is actually very small and that having that regulation has a very significant impact that far outweighs the small extra cost of, in this case, improving labelling so that people know that palm oil is in the products.

I was interested to hear to Senator Farrell's contribution in terms of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's position—that having such labelling will not stop deforestation. Of course it's not going to stop deforestation in itself, but it's a contributing factor. It's something that we, as Australians, can do. It will make a connection between what's happening in Indonesia and Malaysia. It will put out a very public sign that there is no social licence. It will send a very strong message from Australia that we think that palm oil from plantations that have come from deforestation, the removal of tropical rainforest, is not acceptable.

I want to finish my contribution today by drawing the parallel between what's going on in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the deforestation there and the impact on species like orangutans and gibbons, with what is going on here in Australia. We have ongoing land clearing. In Queensland, we have land clearing of 300,000 hectares a year of woodlands. That is impacting species that are just as significant as the orangutans. They might not have the profile of orangutans, but one of them, koalas, absolutely has. Koala populations in Queensland are being devastated because of land clearing. We've got rare birds like the black-throated finch and we've got the endangered mahogany glider. They are being directly threatened by land clearing. They are endangered and being driven to extinction because of the land clearing that is going on here on our shores.

For the same reasons we need to have much better information in the public sphere about the potential here in Australia and we should be legislating to make sure this land clearing stops. We don't hear the same calls for the labelling and certification of food production that's the result of the clearing of forests and woodlands in Queensland. I think we should have a certification and labelling system for the food products, the beef and the lamb, that come from the land that's being cleared in Queensland. There should be similar labelling on Australian products.

We've got the issue of the land clearing in Queensland; we also have the issue of the ongoing logging of our native forests in Australia, where there are other endangered species. These include the Leadbeater's possum as well as the threatened swift parrot in Tasmania. They are being driven to extinction because of the commercial pressures on our native forests. We should have labelling that shows people where the products have come from, so people know that if they're buying mountain ash products, timber products, that are coming from the central highlands of Victoria, they are directly contributing to Leadbeater's possums being threatened and heading to extinction.

At the very least, if we had that labelling, we also need to make sure that certification schemes are meaningful so that people have the information about the wood products that are coming from Australian forests and plantations. It is about the whole issue of giving people adequate information. We know that there are two competing certification systems for wood products in Australia. There's the Australian Forestry Standard, which is hardly worth the paper it's written on. All it basically says is that the forest operations have been conducted in accordance with the current government law. As we know, that allows the ongoing destruction of really rich and diverse forests. The FSC certification, the Forest Stewardship Council, is a much stronger certification. In terms of giving the community information, it is something that people should be looking for. We've got plantation wood products here in Australia that meet the FSC certification. If people are concerned about labelling and if they're concerned about the protection of forests when purchasing wood products, I would encourage them to look for FSC certification rather than anything else.

Coming back to this bill, it is a step forward and it is something that we as Australians can use. It is a relatively small thing for this parliament to agree to. Coming back to Senator Farrell's contribution that it actually won't be very meaningful because the minister already has the power, that the minister may move to allow such labelling—that's the whole point. The minister may move to do it but he or she has not moved to do it in the past. There hasn't been the political will to move on this sort of labelling. So this legislation would shift that from a 'may' to saying, 'This is something that has to happen.' It has to happen in the interests of giving Australians the information they need so that rather than contributing to ongoing environmentally destructive deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, they can be making choices and decisions when purchasing these products that will be consistent with providing a much more sustainable future for us all. Thank you.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Kakoschke-Moore in particular for bringing forward the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2017. I think it's an interesting, timely and important debate for us to have. I have to say that you learn a lot by becoming an Australian senator. There are certain topics and issues that perhaps weren't the kinds of experiences that you may have had prior to coming into this place. I note that Senator Rice was outlining her experiences, having visited some of the areas that have been deforested, and the horrible things that palm oil has done to those communities. My own experiences with palm oil are nowhere near as serious or as significant. My understanding of it prior to coming into this chamber was as a product that my relatives used to put in their hair from time to time, and that created a devastation of its own kind, though nowhere near equivalent! That was a joke, Senator Rice. You're allowed to laugh now!

The intention of this bill I think is a good one. The intention of this bill is to draw attention and try and give consumers the power to make informed decisions when it comes to something like palm oil, being very conscious of the impact that it has in South-East Asia. That, as a point of principle, I think is quite a powerful one. In a strange way, I would even go so far as to say that I know others in the past, like Senator Leyonhjelm, with a strong libertarian perspective, have always supported the principle and the idea that people should be able to make informed decisions for themselves and that it leads to better outcomes when people are able to make those decisions.

The question, though, isn't whether or not those of us here believe that what is happening in the deforestation in South-East Asia is a good thing. Obviously it's not. The debate here is not about whether or not consumers should have as much information as possible and a broad right to know. I believe there is a universal view that informed consumers make better consumers and that people have the right to have an understanding so they can make decisions for themselves. But I do worry, I really worry, when we start going down the path of using labelling as the solution to everything, as a kind of very easy fix that we place on things, which is, 'If this is just labelled this way or that's labelled this way, then everything's going to be okay.' In fact, one could easily argue that there are a huge series of complexities with labelling, putting aside the many intersecting federal and state rules, regulations, agreements, laws, harmonisation and labelling structures that go on. Putting all that aside, there is also the point, worth making, that, when we place too much information in a lot of these labelling processes, we end up with a result in which the consumer ends up being less, not more, informed.

We found this where I spent a lot of my time in the Senate, working with financial services and financial service disclosures. I note that Senator Bushby, who also worked on these matters over a long period of time, was well aware that part of what we all, in a bipartisan manner, realised was wrong with the financial services industry wasn't that we weren't putting the obligation on companies to provide enough information; it was that so much information was being provided. People were getting 20- or 30-page disclosure statements that were incomprehensible and meaningless. That sense of overdisclosure, the tactic of 'snowing' people with information, actually made it more difficult for people to make informed choices and informed decisions.

I worry that it's sometimes a very, very easy fix, especially for politicians, to say: 'Just label it better. The issue's always going to be labelling. It's going to be simple; it's going to be labelling.' There are obviously challenges around labelling, but—and this is the debate—taking something like this one issue in isolation and treating it differently, breaking down the complicated processes we already have in place, the complicated structures, the complicated systems, the interweaving of federal and state relations when it comes to labelling, simply because we decide that this one issue of palm oil is particularly one that we're going to address, I think it opens a Pandora's box. I really do.

It worries me that we're making a series of special cases for this one product. If this were going to be presented as part of a broader debate—through the COAG process or through other formal processes for us to be able to have a debate within a broad structure—it is something that could be supported. I don't believe that what is happening here achieves the objectives that are wanted.

I note something that Senator Farrell said earlier, because I think it's the most important point here. It is that this bill just won't work. Under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the act this bill seeks to amend, the minister already has the power to make the information standard that Senator Xenophon's bill describes. That section clearly says

Making information standards for goods and services

(1) The Commonwealth Minister may, by written notice published on the internet, make an information standard—

Then it goes through and explains that. I urge anyone who is interested to google it.

So there are steps that can be taken. I do have my own concerns about the path we have chosen to take. While very legitimate points are being made about deforestation and its consequences, and about making sure that Australian people are aware of the consequences of using palm oil, I don't believe this bill achieves the objectives that it sets out to. Nonetheless, I think the fact that we are debating these issues in the Senate and that we are raising awareness should be congratulated. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.