Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion concerning a national standard for fertiliser products. It is interesting that the opposition, who always argue against mandatory standards, are bringing a motion before this parliament requesting that mandatory standards be put in place. The opposition are supposed to be friends of business, but if they were the friends of business they should be aware that by putting this regulatory burden on business they would be increasing the cost of doing business and making it harder for business. I question whether they are really the friends of business. This motion shows that the people who really listen to the needs of business are on this side of the parliament.

I am fresh from being back in my electorate. My husband did gardening at the weekend and part of that gardening involved fertilising plants. I was not in the garden with him as the lifestyle of a member of parliament means that we do not get too much time to enjoy being outdoors looking after our plants. The reason I am talking about his contribution to our garden is that he approaches it in the way that I think all people approach gardening. He knew that he needed to put some fertiliser on the lawn so he went to the local store to purchase the required fertiliser. He talked about what he needed to fertilise with the shop assistant working there. He was given a breakdown of the types of fertiliser that were included and he took the advice of a well-trained sales assistant who knew the right kind of fertiliser to use on the lawn, the plants and the vegetables. He walked away with a few bags of fertiliser and was ready to work in the garden. I know that in a couple of months we will see the reward of his finding out about the right kind of fertiliser to use. The member for Longman talked about using masks and gloves. I think any sensible gardener uses masks and gloves. My husband was in the garden wearing a mask and his gloves. So I would encourage all consumers to do what Lindsay did: make inquiries of the merchant about whether a product is fit for the purpose for which it is to be used.

This does not apply only to fertiliser products. We use many commodities in our daily lives. If you have a doubt about anything, check to see whether it will be appropriate for the intended use. I am very careful about what I eat. A number of people have allergies to food—for example, to peanuts. We, as consumers, go out of our way to work out what is in those products. If a person is not sure about the product—this goes to every product we use, not only fertilisers—then the golden rule is to ask. If you cannot find out, do not use it. If you are not comfortable with it, do not use it.

Under the Australian Consumer Law, the ACL, consumers have protection. Under the ACL, consumer guarantees cover any types of goods and services costing up to $40,000 sold in trade and commerce. As members of parliament, it is our role to ensure that consumers are aware of this guarantee. This provides a safety net to all consumers. Consumer guarantees allow consumers to seek redress if the goods they are provided with are not fit for the purpose specified by the consumer. There is also a voluntary product safety standard in place; that is AS4454-2003—the Australian standard for composts, soil conditioners and mulches—which includes guidance on a required PH level. This motion calls for us to move away from voluntary standards—the voluntary standards that those on the other side of this parliament always argue in favour of—to mandatory standards. Any product that purports to meet the voluntary standard but is found not to meet the standard risks breaching the misleading representation provision of the Australian Consumer Law and people could face significant penalties.

I have been involved in the voluntary standards that relate to breastfeeding, which is quite a different area. Members on the other side of this parliament argued very strongly against mandatory standards in that area. Members on the other side of this parliament also argued very strongly against mandatory standards in relation to food labelling. They argued that the best way to achieve it is by a voluntary industry standard. But in relation to the motion before us today, the opposition is arguing that the government should move away from voluntary standards in the area of fertilisers whilst keeping in place voluntary standards in those other areas—areas which are very important to the health and safety of our community. So there are double standards involved in today's motion. The reason for the member moving this motion in parliament is not apparent to me. I have heard him argue against mandatory standards in other areas. His colleagues on the other side of this parliament argue against mandatory standards. As I said in the beginning, a call for mandatory standards would increase the regulatory burden and the cost for business, something that those on the other side of the House obviously have no qualms about doing. Again, they would have to go out and explain to their business constituency how they can justify this increased cost to and regulatory burden on them. Any additional increase in cost ultimately increases the cost to consumers. We need to be certain that there is widespread concern that would justify making consumers pay more. This motion is really about increasing the cost to business, increasing the cost to consumers and therefore increasing daily living expenses—something that those on the other side of this parliament do not mind doing. If there is evidence that there is a widespread problem then I urge the members on the other side to consult with the government and, further, with the states and territories and the fair trading regulators to determine whether or not further regulation is needed.

See this speech in context