Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to sum up the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Let me begin by acknowledging all of those who have contributed on the side of the opposition and those who are in the House. We have the member for Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Riverina. I want to acknowledge the work of people, such as the member for Bowman, who have campaigned over many years, and the member from Reid, the assistant minister who has held carriage of this bill since the election. He has done a sterling job in working with the states, the opposition and all of the different industry groups that have interest in this space.

As the assistant minister said during the second reading speech, this bill forms part of the country-of-origin labelling reforms championed by the government. It is about truth in advertising. It is about allowing Australians to know Australian and to buy Australian. It is nothing more than a measure for full accountability so as those who make choices at the supermarket and at other retail venues are able to do so with full knowledge. It is about making sure that the kangaroo and the triangle, and the bar chart showing the percentage of produce from Australia, are clear, relevant and easily accessible.

Country-of-origin labelling reforms therefore represent a policy response to the growing demand by Australian consumers to know the origin of their food and to assist them in making informed choices about the product they purchase. This could be for reasons of health, confidence, economic consideration or national patriotic duty. The reforms, therefore, provide consumers with clear, meaningful and easier to find country-of-origin information so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. It is about personal preference informed by genuine, reliable information. The country-of-origin labelling reforms have bipartisan support. They have been worked through carefully with the opposition on a consultative basis and, until this moment, have been done entirely in collaboration. I hope—notwithstanding the late news of a second reading amendment—they will continue to have full bipartisan support. I also note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed. We all thank them for that.

As Australians, what we want to know is whether or not the food we buy is from the country we live in or, if it is from elsewhere, where it is from, in what percentage and whether it was made here or packaged here. We also want to know how much of it was grown by our Australian farmers—clearly, unequivocally, the best in the world. The country-of-origin labelling reforms—fondly known as the 'cool reforms' by my assistant minister—are not only about labelling but also about removing regulatory impost on industry. Importantly, this bill, for instance, when passed by the parliament, presuming it does find favour in both houses, will allow for some significant changes to the Australian Consumer Law country-of-origin safe-harbour defences. These defence provisions provide certainty for business. If specific criteria are met, a business will have certainty that its approach to country-of-origin labelling is not misleading or deceptive. The proposed changes to Australian Consumer Law will simplify these defences and ensure they better reflect consumer expectations and international practice. They will make it clearer that minor processes such as packaging, slicing, diluting, crumbing or canning are not sufficient to justify origin claims such as 'made in', consistent with consumer expectations and international reforms. They will remove unnecessary burdensome or redundant revisions and amend and align remaining provisions with the new country-of-origin labelling standard made on 13 April this year.

The last issue I want to deal with which has been raised in passing by some government members and senators such as Senator Back and the member for Leichhardt, in consultation with some members of the fisheries industry, as well as, I acknowledge, by the member for Perth, is in relation to the origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector. It is what my assistant minister has described 'as dealing with the seafood basket question'—how you deal with an ever-changing product that has a multiplicity of sources without imposing an unnecessary burden on the restaurant and catering sector; something that none of us would want to do. That question has been raised through a second reading amendment.

I would note that the ministers of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs decided in March 2016—this was from all states and territories and from people of both persuasions—not to extend mandatory country-of-origin labelling to the food services sector at this time, essentially for the reason of cost and complexity. That was a decision taken in consultation with the jurisdictions in March of this year, where the state and territory jurisdictions themselves—irrespective of their political leanings or their party—were concerned about an unnecessary burden on the sector. However, in good faith, recognising that there are views in both directions, I propose, in order to take forward the work of the parliament, whilst we cannot support this amendment without the work and cooperation of the states and territories—that would be a breach of the COAG commitment—I will undertake to include consideration of improved origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector through a working group on food services within the fisheries and seafood sector.

We would invite not just the states and territories but both the seafood sector and the restaurant, catering, hospitality and small business sectors to be involved. I will ask the assistant minister to lead the process, to report within 12 months and to invite the opposition to be part of the process. It is a genuine, good faith recognition of an issue that has been raised both by the sector and by some on our backbench as well as by the opposition. I think that is the way not to create a process of bad faith that accepting this amendment now would represent, and would be in breach of our COAG process and commitment. Having won the support of the states and territories, I would not want to do anything that lost the support of the states and territories. I hope that step forward is a constructive one and it acknowledges that parliamentary debate can advance an issue. I think that is the way this parliament should work at its best.

Having said that, I particularly want to thank my predecessor, the Leader of the House, and I want to acknowledge the commitment of the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party, both of whom have been staunch advocates of this bill and these reforms. I would like to thank all of those people who have contributed, particularly those in the chamber at the moment: the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and my assistant minister, the member for Reid who have advanced this cause. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 is a genuine national reform. It is about truth in labelling, information for consumers and a better shot for Australian farmers to compete equally and on merit. With those comments, I thoroughly commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context