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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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