Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, I am very pleased to rise to speak on the report into the inquiry into the country of origin labelling for food. I acknowledge the very good leadership of Mr Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, as chair of the committee, and all members for their contributions. I agree with the comments made earlier by the member for O'Connor: it was a very positive, satisfying bipartisan inquiry to be involved in. The work of the secretariat was invaluable, and I thank them for their commitment and professionalism, and I believe the quality of the report is excellent.

An inquiry such as this can only be meaningful with strong stakeholder involvement and consultation, and I believe we achieved just that. The inquiry received more than 60 submissions, held seven public hearings and spent some time visiting food manufacturers.

So why have the inquiry? Why is it that a number of inquiries have already looked at Australia's food-labelling system and yet the consumer, who seeks to be informed about certain qualities of food, still remains confused, uncertain or unclear? This inquiry has arisen due to further alleged high levels of confusion not only amongst consumers but also amongst some manufacturers. For the consumer, this can mean that they are consuming things that they do not want to eat or did not intend to eat. For the manufacturer, it may mean that they have unintentionally fallen foul of the law.

Amongst the five terms of reference, the committee inquiry paid particular attention to whether the country-of-origin labelling system provides enough information for Australian consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. My interest as a lawyer is, in particular, in protecting the consumer so that, when a consumer goes to the supermarket and picks up a product that says it is grown in Australia, the consumer can be sure that this product indeed comprises 100 per cent Australian content. They deserve nothing less. That is what I care about: the consumer having informed choice, especially in this day and age, when consumers are more and more focused on the quality of the food that they serve their families. If they want to support Australian farmers and Australian food manufacturers then the Australian law should assist them with this—not hinder or cause confusion but actually assist them to make these purchasing decisions.

The Australian Consumer Law, as it stands, specifies which foods must have country-of-origin labelling and provides some guiding principles for the industry. It does not prescribe explicit rules with regard to labelling but simply states that the labels cannot be false, misleading or deceptive. The recommendations from this inquiry will add strength and clarity within that existing Consumer Law framework.

The committee is of the view that country-of-origin food labelling should provide crystal-clear information to consumers who wish to make their own choices to purchase Australian food or, indeed, not to buy Australian food; they may want to buy only Italian tomatoes, and that is their right. Our report and recommendations strengthen consumer protection in the area of country-of-origin food labelling and, at the same time, do not present impediments to importers.

A clear er message for consumers, the aptly named report into country-of-origin food labelling, has eight recommendations which give consumers informed choice. I might just give a small flavour—pardon the pun—of some of the recommendations in the report. Recommendation 1 is clearly the most important and is on the safe harbours for labelling: 'grown in' will stipulate that 100 per cent of content is from the country specified, whereas 'product of' stipulates that 90 per cent of content is from the country specified. Recommendation 2 allows for certain relevant text on packaged food to be increased in size so that we can read it; we do not have to squint. I am sure we have all been found in the supermarket aisles squinting at very tiny writing on the packaging, so it only makes sense that it should be big enough for the consumer to read it. Recommendation 3 increases the scrutiny of misleading Australian symbols or imagery. That is so we do not get the wrong impression and are not misled. That is what the consumer deserves. Recommendation 5 is to develop and implement an education program regarding country-of-origin labelling rules et cetera for both consumers and industry so that we can all understand the rules, regulations and labelling system better. There are various other very important recommendations which I will not refer to now, including on bar code technology and so on, which I commend.

The report urges the federal government to make major changes to stipulate the level of local and imported ingredients in food products. I commend the report and its recommendations, which examine the options for improvement to country-of-origin labelling law and policy. I trust that the recommendations will be embraced by my government so that we will relieve the frustrations, confusion and level of public angst amongst those for whom country-of-origin food labelling is a salient topic and, more importantly, provide protection for consumers and also support the very important Australian farmers and manufacturers. I commend this report to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context