Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise in support of this Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I welcome efforts to simplify our labelling laws and improve Australia's country-of-origin labelling. Consumers have every right to know where a particular product comes from—where it originated, where it was grown and where it was packaged. As consumers, when you have as much information as possible in front of you, you can make an informed choice when purchasing a particular product. Therefore I support any efforts to not only simplify but also improve product labelling.

I have raised this issue on many occasions, both in this place and in the media, because constituents continually raise it with me and have a keen interest in it. People want to know what they are buying and where it was grown, and the label has to identify those things. It is a very important step in helping our consumers better identify where their groceries come from and make those informed decisions regarding what they wish to purchase.

Most importantly, this legislation will address consumer concerns while also supporting food manufacturers in Australia. When I think of food manufacturers in Australia the first one that comes to mind is Arnott's Biscuits, which is in my electorate of Hindmarsh—I am very proud to have my electorate as the home of the Tim Tam. I have visited Arnott's many times over the years, and we have discussed labelling and how it affects them.

In some cases, it is not that simple to just label products with where the products have come from. For example, with chocolate biscuits you can only source cocoa from overseas. So it does make it difficult, in some cases. I am very proud that Arnott's manufactures and produces biscuits right there in the middle of the western suburbs. It employs over 200 people and exports its products all over the world.

We know that the best way to secure quality local food is for people to buy Australian-made products. I know many other places that support Australian-made products, such as Drake Foodland and the Romeo's Foodland group in my electorate. Drake has major supermarkets at West Lakes, West Beach and Torrensville, which is my local supermarket. Romeo has supermarkets in my electorate at Glenelg and Brooklyn Park. I shop there as well occasionally. They love to have local products on their shelves. They do all they can to try and sell Australian produce and I commend them both for that. This, in turn, supports local manufacturing—our food manufacturers and our reputation for very high quality food and produce.

This legislation does so by ensuring clarity of definition and supporting consumer choice based on informed decisions. Australian laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with their country of origin. This is designed to minimise the potential for false or misleading claims about a product's country of origin. You can see that in many instances over the years of particular products claiming to be Australian products but, when you scratch the surface a bit, you discover that the country of origin is thousands of kilometres away from these shores.

Before these changes came into effect, provisions in the Australian Consumer Law stipulated three classifications of label. One is that any product label made in Australia had to have been substantially transformed in Australia, with at least half of the cost of production or manufacture occurring in Australia. That may sound pretty simple and straight forward but consider the packaging, the wrapping, and a whole range of other things. If you have a very small product and the majority of it is packaging and wrapping, can you claim that as an Australian product? Products labelled 'Product of Australia' had to have all significant ingredients or proponents originating in Australia and virtually all of the manufacture or production of the goods happening here in Australia.

Products labelled 'grown in Australia' had to have every significant ingredient grown in Australia, and virtually all processes involved in production or manufacturing had to have happened here in Australia. So, it has been very confusing. It is not the labelling itself that is confusing, but the way things are labelled and when and why they can be labelled. It is the fact that it has left heaps of room for interpretation, meaning that, while the interpretation may have fitted the letter of the law in the legal requirements, at times it went against the spirit of the law and also against the will of the Australian consumer.

As I said, Australian consumers want to know where a particular product came from, where it was sourced and what is in it and then make informed choices about whether to purchase that particular product or not. For example, fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, bottles and labels could have been labelled as 'made in Australia', yet the fruit juice might have been from foreign fruit. This is very important for South Australia with all our Riverland orange growers and fruit growers. It has been an contentious issue for a long time that sometimes concentrate from Brazil may get mixed with in our orange juice and then it is called 'Australian made'. The situation as it was before the changes to the country-of-origin legislation came into effect in July 2016 meant that consumers could be misled as to where their product came from. I just gave the example of orange juice, which was raised with me many times over the years.

The new requirements make it a great deal easier for consumers to navigate and understand the labelling. The new labels are consistent, clear and simplified.    They include an easily identifiable kangaroo triangle symbol, a bar chart and a text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients, ranging from zero per cent to 100 per cent Australian ingredients. What we want to aim for is to see 100 per cent Australian ingredients on as many products as possible that we buy here in Australia. Food that is only packed in Australia will have the text and bar chart showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. Imported food will clearly show the country of origin. This is very important. For example, I heard the member for Kingston speaking about her electorate earlier. I know a few years ago there was an issue where lots of olive growers in her electorate were rightly complaining about foreign olive oil coming in with claims it was 100 per cent virgin olive oil. There were also claims it was Australian because it was mixed with a small part of Australian olive oil. These are some of the complex scenarios that have existed.

Under these amendments, the last substantial transformation of a product carrying the label 'made in', 'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia must have happened here in Australia. This means that an imported product cannot claim it was made in Australia if it has only undergone minor processing such as slicing, canning, crumbing, reconstituting or repackaging in Australia. The amendments also remove the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. In addition, the amendments make it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product of' or 'grown in' labels. The amendments also stipulate that water, when used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients, is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective of the actual origin of the water.

It is a very complex area and it is very important for consumers to have faith in the products they buy. Consumers need to have as much information as possible to make those informed choices, so that, when they are making a choice, they know what they are purchasing and they know if they want to support an Australian-made product or if they want to buy something from overseas. It is also very important when you are buying specific types of ingredients. Sometimes, you may wish to purchase something from overseas because it is the best you can get in that area and it may something that we do not grow or do here. You also want to make sure that you are purchasing the correct product, even if it is from outside of Australia.

Consumers cannot be expected to read the fine print. Currently, it is so complicated. All of us have been to the supermarket, picked up a product and tried to work out where it was made or where it originated from. The print is so fine on every product that you have to have an in-depth knowledge of the labelling system in order to work out whether a product is right for you, your family or the consumer who is buying it. Everyone is so busy, and we understand that people want to make good and informed decisions quickly and easily. If you are anything like me, you want to run into the supermarket, grab what you need and do it as quickly as possible. The last thing I and the Australian public need is to look at very complicated labelling and not be able to understand it. But this should not undermine people's ability to make informed decisions. It is so important.

Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from, and Australians have told us—me in my electorate office; others in hearings and different inquiries that have taken place—how important this is to them. This is why I welcome these changes, and it is great to note that these changes have also been welcomed by the majority of producers and manufacturers, as well as industry and consumer groups. In fact, the consumer group Choice has described these changes as:

…a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.

However, I understand that consumer choice and information should not come with associated excessive cost to producers. This would be counterproductive, of course. It is also critical that consumers are protected without putting an undue burden on Australian food processors, which would simply have the effect of sending more manufacturing offshore. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting consumers and businesses. As I said, this is a very topical issue. It is constantly raised with me at shopping centres and everywhere I go because people want to know what they are purchasing.

Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainty for businesses, particularly Australian food manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with the new requirements. This is why I welcome the fact that these new rules will make it clearer for businesses to know when certain claims can and cannot be used. It is also why we welcome the two-year transition period, to enable industry to move to these new labelling regulations.

The opposition, the Labor Party, has long been committed to these reforms. I have been long-time committed to reforms to better labelling, which, as I said, have been raised many times with me. In fact on many occasions I have mentioned it on local radio's 5AA in South Australia on the Leon Byner show because it is a topical issue and it comes up regularly. When we were in government, we conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states through COAG to improve guidance for both consumers and industry.

Labor was very clear that we were committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling. At the time, we called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We understood then the need to work across government and with industry and consumer groups to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. This will make it much clearer for consumers and it will support local produce. We heard earlier others speak about their local markets and local farmer's markets. This is a good thing. For these reasons, I support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context