Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is great to rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 because it is a great example of the Turnbull-Joyce government delivering. This is a government that keeps delivering on election promises and commitments. I note the previous speaker's contribution to this. I am glad he is a supporter. It is a pity we had to wait for our government to deliver it, and deliver it we will.

I was just noting to myself how this bill will improve or do good for my electorate. I just wrote down in about 30 or 60 seconds what food my electorate contributes to this economy. It contributes fish, beef, macadamias, dairy, blueberries, sugar, avocados, many other stone fruits, bananas, coffee and I could go on. They are just some of the examples of the food that my electorate produces and contributes to this economy. What we have always said and what the previous speaker noted was that the previous country-of-origin labelling was inadequate. It was something that since we have been in government in the last three years we have been committed to delivering—clear, simple country-of-origin labelling. Simple, you would think, but it has been quite an exhaustive process. What we have delivered are reforms that are going to provide consumers with very clear and easy to find country-of-origin labelling information so that they can make informed choices.

As many speakers before me commented, you could walk in and look at some labels on some processed food and it might have had no food that originated in this country but just have had some processing component that completed it in Australia and it could have an Australian label on it. This new labelling is going to show very clearly where the food is from, how much of the food content is from Australia and how much of it was processed here or elsewhere. This will give consumers great choice. It is good for our farmers and good for our food producers because we know that Australian consumers will buy Australian food even if it costs a little bit more than overseas food because they trust it. They trust our food, they trust our farmers and they trust our food producers. There was an example of frozen berries a couple of years ago, where people were made quite ill from eating food that had been processed elsewhere.

The substantial transformation test currently is inadequate. 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' is when food is only minimally processed in Australia. Research has shown that the current framework is ineffective, particularly for food. Some origin labels and rules are still confusing and unhelpful. The proposed changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. It will make clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of imported goods such as dicing or canning are not sufficient to justify a 'made in' claim. On top of the confusion to consumers, it is clear that the '50 per cent production cost' test that is currently used is an unnecessary burden on business and means little to consumers. I know that people across my electorate and indeed across the whole country have been calling for these changes on food labels.

The changes in this bill will make food labelling clearer, more meaningful and more accurate. This bill will help consumers identify the difference between descriptions like 'made in' and 'product of'. It is the aim of the new labels to be easier to understand. We are all time poor. When a consumer is walking down the aisle of a supermarket and they have a choice of different products, the labelling and the diagrammatic labels will be easy for the consumer to very quickly make an informed decision.

The changes will also assist with the reduction of red tape by removing the '50 per cent production cost' test. The regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses will decrease. The regulation impact statement estimated the total savings from that will be close to $50 million per year and will increase for however many years it goes on. I know, Deputy Speaker Irons, you are very aware; you are a very informed member of parliament. I note you are very aware that there was an exhaustive, extensive consultation process with these country-of-origin label changes. There were discussions with businesses and community representatives. State and territory governments were involved. Our trading partners were involved. It is particularly important to note that, through this process, the government secured broad state and territory support for this.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the thousands of people who took the time and trouble to contribute their views and to work with us during the development of these reforms. Their participation helped us to achieve our goal of providing consumers with the information that they want. The government is also going to provide the ACCC with additional funding to help undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to the new requirements. The government has also agreed to fund a $15.2 million information campaign so that consumers understand the changes and are able to work with them. Australian Consumer Law will also be involved, obviously, with people who try to not do the right thing with this.

It is lovely to have three of my Nationals colleagues in the chamber with me—the Minister for Small Business is sitting over on the other side; I am sure temporarily—because within our party room we were very passionate about the issue that the law on country-of-origin labelling change. It was not a simple process. As I said, exhaustive consultation happened, and it was a very laborious process to get state and territory governments, business and our trading partners on board. But it was something that our communities, our food-producing communities, were passionate about. We wanted the good-quality, clean food that we process to be very identifiable to the Australian consumer, because the Australian consumer wants to support the Australian farmer. It is great for us in the Nationals, together with our coalition partner, to be able to do this. The other side had been talking about it and said they agreed with it, but we, like on many things, are delivering it. It has been a pleasure to talk to this bill.

See this speech in context