Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

I hope the member for Bendigo is not planning on leaving the chamber. When she first entered parliament in 2013, I reached over the great divide, I reached over to the other side of the chamber, to bring her into a conversation about the origin of the Chiko Roll. Colin Bettles from Farm Weekly was wanting to do a story as a promotion out the front of the chamber to talk up this wonderful product. I am glad the member for Calare is not in the chamber, because he would be claiming it. The fact is, in talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, we can all talk about the Chiko Roll, because it is currently manufactured by Simplot in Bathurst in the Calare electorate. It has been since Simplot took ownership of the Chiko Roll brand in 1995. As the member for Bendigo quite correctly pointed out just a moment ago, it first saw the light of day at the Wagga Wagga agricultural show in 1951. I agree with her, the McEncroe's originally came up with the idea—they invented it—in Bendigo. However, as I have always said, it is not where you were thought of, it is not where you end up, it is where you were born that makes such a difference. It saw the first light of day in Wagga Wagga.

The Chiko Roll's filling, even though the name might suggest it is chicken—and I am sure you have enjoyed a Chiko Roll from time to time, Deputy Speaker Kelly—is primarily cabbage and barley, as well as carrots, green beans, beef, beef tallow, wheat cereal, celery and, indeed, onion. This legislation is important for all of those items because they all need proper labelling. They are all items which need truth in labelling, irrespective of where we might think that the Chiko Roll was invented. I know Wagga Wagga has a claim, I know Bathurst has a claim and I appreciate that Bendigo has a claim. When the member for Bendigo came to that little bit of social media interaction out the front of Parliament House, I just wish that she had handed me a Chiko Roll that was cooked. She handed me a frozen one, and I took a great bite out of it and nearly broke my teeth.

Getting on to the important matters before the House today, this bill has a simple proposition: consumers should have the best possible information to rely on when they go to the supermarket to shop. In rising to speak on this very important bill, I do so noting that this bill presents something of an article of faith for country people, and especially for the Nationals. I am so glad that the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler, the assistant minister, are beside me to support the passage of this important legislation through the House. For decades, the idea that consumers should be able to have an easy-to-use reference of whether the produce on supermarket shelves is Australian has dominated conferences, branch meetings and, indeed, discussions of the Nationals right across the country. So, too, the more than 5,000 farmers, many of whom are small businesses—in fact, I would say almost all of whom are small businesses—whom I represent in this place, have made the case that Australian producers want Australian consumers to buy Australian food and fibre. It almost goes without saying. This is exactly what this bill proposes and delivers upon. I am so glad that the minister, Mr Hunt, is here, because he also knows just how important this legislation is.

As a country member of parliament, I can say this is a matter which has dominated the conversations and interactions I have had with people right across the Riverina and the Central West for years. Many constituents of mine have written and called over the years. I know they are pleased that the government is listening to their feedback and enacting sensible and meaningful change through this particular legislation. Country-of-origin labelling should provide Australians with access to reliable information about where their food comes from so that they can make informed choices about the product they purchase. That is exactly, precisely and deliberately what this legislation does.

When this legislation was first proposed, the Nationals, as part of the coalition government, indicated we would reform the system for country-of-origin labelling. My electorate had the Snowy Mountains and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, so this is a matter of vital importance to many of my constituents and, indeed, many of my former constituents. A survey that I conducted of my electorate midway through last year demonstrated not only the widespread support for these changes but the opportunity they create for our primary producers.

As the minister responsible for consumer affairs—and I appreciate my shadow is opposite—I hear stories every day, and I am sure the member for Perth does, too, about how consumers want better access to information on supermarket shelves at a glance to make more informed decisions about purchases. It is why these changes have been top of mind since parliament resumed. State and territory and Commonwealth consumer affairs ministers agreed on 31 March this year to reform the country-of-origin labelling system for food to give consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they buy. They should expect nothing less. This is a critical reform. It is something on which the government has focused following extensive consultation with consumers and industry. And that word—'consultation'—keeps cropping up whenever we talk about legislation before this House, because that is what a responsible government does. That is what the Liberals and Nationals do. With every piece of legislation that comes before the House, we consult key stakeholders, industry groups, the various sectors affected and ordinary, everyday Australians—'Mr and Mrs Average', my mother-in-law often calls them. And she is right—as always.

See this speech in context